Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (07/03/90)
In response to ID based copy protection...
>>>>> On 2 Jul 90 21:14:07 GMT, FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) said:
Dana> At least dongles can be moved to a
Dana> different machine!
So can socketed ID PROMs (with active circuitry). See my post from 5/28
for a description of an example implementation.
Dana> It would take an IFF-type standard with everybody
Dana> buying into it and warning notices on the boxes of major software
Dana> before I would be comfortable with the serial number route.
I'd go even further. IMHO, _all_ copy protected software should bear a
label _on the outside_ of the package describing the type of protection
used. (e.g. disk, dongle, keyword, etc.) It makes a difference to me.
In particular, I despise disk based copy protection on productivity
software. (When you need it most, the disk fails after having been ground
too many times.)
It may not have been explicitly stated before, but the hardware standard
for ID PROMS almost certainly will have to come from Commodore to work. My
hope is that the ADA and Commodore can work out something relatively cheap
and effective while minimizing the inconvenience to users. I believe that
a lot of high-end, high-ticket software will never get ported to the Amiga
(or be developed on the Amiga:-) until an effective machine ID based method
of copy protection is available. (NOTE: I _didn't_ say "mandantory" or
"exclusively"; there is no _one_ form of copy protection that works best
for every type of software. This includes no protection at all.)
This is especially unfortunate since there are now Amigas with enough power
to handle applications formerly limited to $10,000 to $100,000 workstations.
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
--
Chuck Phillips MS440
NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com
Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp