peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/16/90)
[redirect this thread to comp.misc] In article <10760@saturn.ucsc.edu> daniel@saturn.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson) writes: > Limiting software to a particular period of time or number of > executions appears difficult, especially on PCs, but even on > workstations. A particular number of executions, I can believe. But a particular period of time is no big deal. Everything you send through the mail or buy in a store is timestamped (either via the cancellation or on your receipt), so allowing people a 30 or so day trial period seems fairly easy. Other goods are sold that way. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/16/90)
D'ya ever get the impression that the inventor of a HOME SHRINKWRAP MACHINE would become an overnight millionaire? :-)
new@udel.edu (Darren New) (02/20/90)
In article <9427@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >What prevents me from turning my clock back to withing the 30-day window of >use anytime I want to use the software, thus "extending" my use indefinitely. I've seen silicon compilers for mainframes liscenced on a month-to-month basis. It's a real pain to switch clocks around on a mainframe that several people are using. If you've got an accounting application (or anything else, like Nag, that depends on the dates being correct) then this won't work. Datestamps are critical for Make to work, so you probably wouldn't want to play around like this for compilers. Of course, thinkgs like paint programs can't be properly protected just by switching the dates. -- Darren
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (02/22/90)
In article <VUV1H6Fxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > No, you get software on a trial basis. If you don't like it, send it back > within 30 days. No traps, or copy protection. I recently purchased a compiler from a mail order company which advertised a 30 day money back return period. The only catch was that the package had to be returned in re-sellable condition. The agreement clearly stated that in order to be re-sellable the seal on the diskette package had to be unbroken. Great, I've got 30 days to evaluate the compiler but I can't even look at the disks much less run anything. I didn't even bother to continue to read to see if I was allowed to break the shrinkwrap on the manuals. Anyway, I installed the compiler, it works as advertised, I'm happy with it and will keep it. FYI I was able to peel off the sticker "sealing" the disk box without tearing it so I guess I could have returned it if it had turned out to be a dog. > _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. > / \ > \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! > v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy
dgh@unify.uucp (David Harrington) (02/24/90)
In article <VUV1H6Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9427@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >> In article <H7S1666xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >> What prevents me from turning my clock back to withing the 30-day window of >> use anytime I want to use the software, thus "extending" my use indefinitely. > >Nothing, presuming you're a pirate anyway. But if that's the case you'd >probably have gotten a cracked copy from your buddy down the hall anyway, >and never taken the risk of letting a software publisher get your name. > Agreed, Peter, but hopefully his system will have a chron daemon on it that will punish him SERIOUSLY for dinking with the system date, and making chron crazy. -- David Harrington internet: dgh@unify.UUCP Unify Corporation ...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!dgh 3870 Rosin Court voice: (916) 920-9092 Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: (916) 921-5340
mlewis@unocss..unl.edu (Local Submission) (02/25/90)
Don't need no stinking attributions. Some time ago I was the system
manager for the administrative computer at this university, and we
decided to standardise our spreadsheet offerings among the various
minis and micros to 20/20, which is an OUTSTANDING product. However,
they were pretty new at the time, and there was a glitch in their
distribution: In the summer of 1985, 60 days after their first major
shipments (or so) every copy of 2020 in the world died. They had
distributed "demo copies" out, all with an expiration date in them.
As it happened, I was out of town when it happened.
Some time later, I had a chance to "test" WordPerfect on another
computer of the same variety (Data General), which had a 60-day
expiration in it. It lasted almost 80 days. Somebody else put it
very succintly: for business machines, you CAN'T muck with the
system date. If no other reason, the auditors get mightliy perturbed.
Marc
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Na khuya mne ehto gavno? | Internet: cs057@zeus.unl.edu
preferred machine->| UUCP: uunet!btni!unocss!mlewis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------