dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) (01/03/91)
We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software against indiscriminate copying... It would be easy to simply use crypt and the hostid to "brand" the sold copy to the machine in which it is installed, but it would also be potentially easy to break that mechanism. I have been looking for a survey paper that describes different copy protection mechanisms but have found nothing. I would appreciate any references or input. Also, if something like this already exists on one of the archive servers that would be even BETTER! What are other people using???? Thanks, dany guindi 512-343-1111 uunet!pencom!pensoft!dany
cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) (01/04/91)
In article <2983@pensoft.UUCP> dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes: > >We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on >our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software >against indiscriminate copying... Don't use it. >but it would also be potentially easy to break that mechanism. I have been >looking for a survey paper that describes different copy protection mechanisms >but have found nothing. I would appreciate any references or input. People despise copy protection. I administer a large network that has several Frame users. If the Framemaker host goes down, we have to get them on the phone and reinstall the software with a new serial number. Delta microsystems recently sent us an optical disk device driver with a hostid serial number. We immediately called them and told them that we would buy drives from another vendor if they restricted the portability of their hardware with copy-protection. They sent us an untainted driver. >Also, if something like this already exists on one of the archive servers >that would be even BETTER! What are other people using???? You want FREE, PUBLIC DOMAIN copy-protection software? You are avaricious. Copy protection impedes productivity and technological growth. Vendors should be releasing source code, not confining their users. And to think, you expect someone to tell you how to do it for free. All of my software (UNIX computer music software) is free and in the public domain. All of its source code is available also. Christopher Penrose jesus!penrose
jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler) (01/04/91)
dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes: >We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on >our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software >against indiscriminate copying... If you do decide to release anything with copy protection, please tell me what software product you are producing, so I (and many others) can refuse to buy it. If your product is worth buying, and priced reasonably, people will buy it. Provide support for your product to registered owners via regular updates and bug fixes, and telephone or e-mail help for tech. questions. John Feiler
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (01/04/91)
In article <2983@pensoft.UUCP> dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes: >against indiscriminate copying... It would be easy to simply use crypt and >the hostid to "brand" the sold copy to the machine in which it is installed, >but it would also be potentially easy to break that mechanism. ...and it would be very easy for that mechanism to break all by itself. All our machines got new hostids when we upgraded from 0.9 to 1.0, and no doubt will again when the '030s become '040s. > What are other people using???? We, the customers, are using non-copy-protected products, and will cheerfully use our collective influence to attempt to drive your company under. Have a Nice Day(tm). Site Licensing is Your Friend. -=EPS=-
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (01/04/91)
/ comp.sys.next / dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) / Jan 2, 1991 / > We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on > our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software > against indiscriminate copying... Thanks for the warning. Nice not doing business with you. Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (01/04/91)
If you feel compelled to use a sort of copy protection which I think is not necessary unless you sell a program that the user uses probably only once and thus can easily forget about paying, then at least do not bind the program to the host-id. This is BS. Just think each time you upgrade you have to replace all your software. Any company most probably will buy it's software (internal and external revision, corporate image, etc.) The one who uses software professionaly will pay, even if it's just because of the support and upgrades. The few hackers that collect software are no big danger, I would guess. After all they would never buy the software in the first place, the few times they use it is just for thefun of it. Professional software pirates can hack most protections anyway, but for them is the NeXT market uninteresting at least with it's current size. The best protection is a low price and good support. Just my .02$ Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
moose@svc.portal.com (01/05/91)
In article <2983@pensoft.UUCP> dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes: > >We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on >our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software >against indiscriminate copying... It would be easy to simply use crypt and >the hostid to "brand" the sold copy to the machine in which it is installed, >but it would also be potentially easy to break that mechanism. I have been >looking for a survey paper that describes different copy protection mechanisms >but have found nothing. I would appreciate any references or input. > >Also, if something like this already exists on one of the archive servers >that would be even BETTER! What are other people using???? You would probably be better off site licensing the product. That way, everyone at one site can use the machine. Remember, NeXT is a multi-user machine and with NXHost, limiting it to one machine is not going to keep it from being used across the whole network. Another thought is to force personalization. It deters piracy because the owners name is on the program. You can also register serial numbers and such. Most legitimate companies do not pirate. Some even require all software to be personalized so if there is piracy, they can trace it down and stop it. Before you say I am naive or anything, Microphone, the program I am writing for the NeXT, has never had any copy protection on any of the machines we run on. We have never had a problem with widespread piracy because our program is tailored for business users. Home users that pirate our program would most likely never have purchased the program anyway. -- Michael Rutman | moose@svc.portal.com Cubist | makes me a NeXT programmer Software Ventures | For Your Eyes Only Public Key
marcus@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) (01/05/91)
dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes: >but it would also be potentially easy to break that mechanism. I have been >looking for a survey paper that describes different copy protection mechanisms >but have found nothing. I would appreciate any references or input. >Also, if something like this already exists on one of the archive servers >that would be even BETTER! What are other people using???? oh golly this is funny. jeez ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - MD - marcus@eecs.ee.pdx.edu OR ....!uunet!tektronix!psueea!eecs!marcus - MD - "An empty stomach is not a good polotical advisor." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.000354.16593@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler) writes: > dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes: >>We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on >>our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software >>against indiscriminate copying... > > If you do decide to release anything with copy protection, > please tell me what software product you are producing, so I (and many others) > can refuse to buy it. If your product is worth buying, and priced reasonably, > people will buy it. Provide support for your product to registered owners > via regular updates and bug fixes, and telephone or e-mail help for tech. > questions. > > John Feiler I don't wish to start an argument here but I do have a somewhat different perspective. I realize that copyprotection is a swear word, not only because of the inconvenience of moving licenses to another machine when a licensed machine goes down (as pointed out by a previous poster to this discussion thread) but also because of the various copy protection schemes tried out on IBM PCs and compatibles which made it hard to use the software and impossible to maintain backup copies. However, I have found that it is a convenience to be able to utilize a utility such as DEC's license management facility for VAX/VMS for controlling the licensing of software on large numbers of network nodes. My experience indicates that a properly-done, network-oriented LMF utility can be a real benefit in a large installation and is no bother in a standalone environment. Such a utility can potentially benefit the user not only by adding to convenience in large facility license management, but by making the target environment more attractive to software developers who have a consistent means for protecting their software without inconveniencing licensees. This sort of utility is feasible in an environment such as UNIX which already has mechanisms for access control and is an advantage that it has vs. MS-DOS where copy protection schemes are kludgey of necessity. I would welcome a good LMF built into the NeXT OS. BTW, I believe I saw reference in some third party list somewhere that some company offers some sort of license manager. I've never seen details so don't know if it even addresses these sorts of issues. Again, this is a personal perspective on a controversial topic and I will certainly be interested in seeing the other views I'm sure will be expressed. c.f.waltrip DDN: waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu Opinions expressed are my own.
madler@pooh.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (01/05/91)
License management and copy-protection can and should be distinct. Or more precisely, there should be no such thing as copy-protection, but there should be license management to make life more convenient, not less. Mark Adler madler@pooh.caltech.edu
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (01/06/91)
I hope the NeXT software business can learn from the PC/Mac world and skip the process of copy protecting all software and then finding that it hurts sales and then eliminating it from their products. So far nothing I've purchased uses it, and nothing I write will use it either. - g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (01/10/91)
Don't copy protect it at all. NOBODY likes things that are copy protected. In fact, many people will not even PURCHASE copy-protected software. I for one, won't. Anybody else who feels the same way? aabenson@mtu.edu or aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu