Is making a repl destroy itself upon fork against the ToS?
no, why would it? It’s possible by checking the
repl_id onBoot or perhaps the
There was a article about it a little bit ago (Am I Allowed To Make A No Fork Repl? - Replit Help - Replit Ask) where people made a bunch of strategys for destoroying a rpel upon fork (@Firepup650 even made one that doesn’t even let you see the code on the cover page without forking it ).
@bigminiboss You’re sure it’s not against the ToS?
of course. It doesn’t interact with the API in anymanner
You could but I don’t see why you would, why not make it private instead? Public Repls are meant to be forked and shared around
Understood. Just saying this because some of us don’t have access to the resources to pay for Private Repls.
You can store it all in a secret than use
exec() (IIRC) to execute it like I said in the topic you linked to
yes you can do this; me and coderelijah have made an appf or it before. It consists of this:
exec(os.environ["THE_CODE"].replace('\\t', '\t').replace('\\n', '\n'))
I’ll just outline the different approaches and goals here:
- Use Secrets or hash functions to restrict repl with a password or only allow yourself
REPL_OWNERto restrict by account
- Put codebase in Secrets
.replitfile to delete all files, checking env vars like
- Use something external like to hold the code privately, then your repl asks for it
- Use obfuscated or encrypted code into your repl, store source code not in replit (allows people to use your program)
I wouldn’t since I don’t have money too. I would rather just make it no fork where people can see what I made as well.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.