[comp.sys.mac] Morality of Self-Destructing HyperCard Stack

t1f4387@helios.TAMU.EDU (Mike Farlow) (02/21/90)

A friend and I are beginning a HyperCard project that will be
distrubuted to new students at Texas A&M to show them were the different
computing facilities are located and what types of hardware/software is
at those facilities.

After we create this stack for A&M, we hope to be able to offer the
shell and a 'Construction Stack' to other universities that would like
to have it.  Also a demo stack will be posted to the usual places.

Since we want to be the central distribution site for this stack, we
want deliver full working version only to sites who license with the
Trustees of Texas A&M (we hope this license to be free, i.e. John
Norstad's Disinfectant).  The primary reason being for us to offer
support, all copies of the stack must be consistent (less site-specific
information).  As a result, the DEMO would automatically cripple itself
after a preset amount of time.

Our question is this:

Is it morally reprehensible to develop a piece of software that will
destroy/cripple itself?

We have considered the following options to accomplish this:

o Hiding the destruct mechanism inside a _vital_ XCMD or XFCN.

o Deletion of the scripts for all the cards/buttons/backgrounds. (This
  leaves the stack intact, but functionally useless)

o OR physical deletion of the stack from the disk.


We would appreciate your comments on our methods.  WE ARE NOT soliciting
views on the morality of cripple-ware itself.  What we need is feedback
on the least obnoxious method of crippling our stack.

Please reply direct to me since I do not read c.s.m a whole lot.  A
summary will be posted once the replies have died down.

Thank you.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Michael Farlow,                    X098MF@TAMVM1.BITNET
MicroComputer Specialist           X098MF@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU 
Computing Services Center
Texas A&M University               Thank you, John Norstad!!!

bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (02/25/90)

In article <4286@helios.TAMU.EDU>, t1f4387@helios.TAMU.EDU (Mike Farlow) writes:
> 
> Since we want to be the central distribution site for this stack, we
> want deliver full working version only to sites who license with the
> Trustees of Texas A&M (we hope this license to be free, i.e. John
> Norstad's Disinfectant).  The primary reason being for us to offer
> support, all copies of the stack must be consistent (less site-specific
> information).  As a result, the DEMO would automatically cripple itself
> after a preset amount of time.
> 
> Michael Farlow,                    X098MF@TAMVM1.BITNET

I know that this is not what you want to here but I would like to know why
you would even bother to post a self destructing copy. Why not just announce
the product and terms for distribution? You compare your idea with Disinfectant
but Mr. Norstad doesn't clutter up the BBS's and netfeeds with a program that
isn't going to work. 


********************************************************************
*                                                                  *
*   bob church  bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu                       *
*                                                                  *
*  If economics isn't an "exact" science why do computers crash    *
*  so much more often than the stock market?                       *
*                                          bc                      *
********************************************************************

denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (02/28/90)

In <4286@helios.TAMU.EDU>, t1f4387@helios.TAMU.EDU (Mike Farlow) writes:

> information).  As a result, the DEMO would automatically cripple itself
> after a preset amount of time.
> 
> Michael Farlow,                    X098MF@TAMVM1.BITNET


I have been writing a program for which fresh versions will be needed
periodically.  I was, like you are, contemplating crippling the
program after a preset date.  This really bothers me because someone
could very easily get a program that was unusable and have to wait
while they were getting a new version.

I have come up with what I consider to be a much superior method.
When you start the program, it checks to see if it is too old.  If it
is, it puts up a message that says "This is an old version.  To get a
current version, send me $5.00 (to cover the disk/copying/shipping) or
find it on a local bbs."  The user can then click OK and continue with
their work.

The danger is, of course, that I have to guess at the date of
obsolesence.  I figure that letting users know that it is time to
upgrade and where to upgrade will be something that they find useful.

I anticipate new versions every six months and a timeout about a year
after release.

-- 
William C. DenBesten   is   denbeste@bgsu.edu  or   denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet