jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (08/11/84)
I've been thinking about this for a little while, and would like your
opinions on whethere or not it is a good idea.
Imagine buying a small board, at a very modest price, which contains
(almost) nothing but empty sockets. Imagine that every time you buy
a protected package, you get a small PROM to insert in one of your
sockets. Imagine that every time you start the program, it looks to
see whether or not your PROM is there.
As I see it:
Advantages:
- When your machine breaks, you can simply(?) move your board/PROM to
a different machine.
- Can put on a hard disk (without needing some sort of 'key' diskette)
and can make an arbitrary number of backup copies.
- Can sell your copy of the software, but it is impossible to keep a
usable copy for yourself.
- No more weird diskettes.
Disadvantages:
- Requires cooperation between IBM and a mess of software manufacturers.
- Requires a (short?) slot.
- Large(?) initial outlay?
- What if you zap your PROM by some freak of nature??
- Like any other protection scheme, it would be possible to patch out
the protection code, but I would guess that this would be acceptable
since I would perceive the product as more acceptable to the public
i.e. I don't buy copy-protected software if I can help it at all,
simply because it's a drag to use.
- Requires reserved locations in memory or something that restricts
the hardware a little (I don't know enough to comment accurately
on such things).
Comments??
John M Sellens
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!jmsellens
CSNET: jmsellens%watmath@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: jmsellens%watmath%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpanather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (08/13/84)
[]
What's to keep me from duplicating the PROM and giving my friends
a copy?
--
Ed Nather
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!nather
Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austinslag@charm.UUCP (Peter Rosenthal) (08/16/84)
slurp slurp problem #1: You can patch out the code.( already mentioned) problem #2: You could copy the prom. problem #3: There is no 3.