[comp.sys.mac] Morality of creating crippleware

t1f4387@helios.TAMU.EDU (Michael Farlow) (02/22/90)

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!!!

jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (02/23/90)

I have only a few qualms with crippleware:

1) Unless it's advertised as such, crippleware can confuse the
machine's administrator and user when his or her machine crashes
unexpectedly.  Oh... gee it must be this shareware thing I got off the
net.  Or MAYBE it's a virus.  Or maybe the disk drive has gone bad.
How can we tell?  If it IS advertised as such well then caveat emptor.

2) Crippleware discourages the distribution of freeware/shareware.
When enough people become frustrated with crippleware they will begin
boycotting the good stuff (freeware/shareware).  Distributing
crippleware seems like a good way to insure your development time
however it can also have the effect of discouraging the use of network
derived software.

3) Gee did *I* REALLY destroy your file system?  If the crippleware
programmer makes a mistake in the code that either disabels or
destroys itself, and ends up wiping away your file system then you can
expect to see some pretty heated flames coming your way.  Crippleware
that inadvertently destroys a user's data is tantamount to a trojan
horse.

Worse, a programmer who DELIBERATLY tries to distribute trojan
horses/viruses could hide behind the claim that "oh it was just
crippleware.... so sorry hee hee."


That's my $0.2.