rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (07/14/90)
In order for people just tuning in to understand, let's note that the new Interactive release (2.2) is *not* copy-protected. The term "copy protection" conventionally refers to writing the media (diskettes) in some unusual format which prevents them from being read by a normal drive/driver combination. Usually, the strongest objection to copy protection is that it prevents making a backup copy of the media. Again, the 2.2 media are *not* copy-protected; they *can* be read as normal diskettes. The license for the software contains an explicit provision allowing you to make a copy for backup purposes. What *has* been done is to add an authorization step during installation: You must enter the serial number of your software (which is printed on the diskettes) and also enter an "authorization key" (which is printed on a separate card supplied to you; the card also contains the serial number) before installation will proceed. I understand that the authorization-key tracking can be anything from a minor nuisance to a major problem, depending on circumstances. I'm not going to enter the public fray on that one. (Yes, of course I have opinions! But I work for ISC; almost any opinion I'd express would be out of place here.) I just want people to be discussing and making their decisions based on the authorization-keying, not on an incorrect assumption that it's copy-protected. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Reality is neat! It works even if you don't believe in it!
sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (07/15/90)
In article <1990Jul13.211604.12457@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >Again, the 2.2 media are *not* copy-protected; they *can* be read as normal >What *has* been done is to add an authorization step during installation: >You must enter the serial number of your software (which is printed on the >I understand that the authorization-key tracking can be anything from a >minor nuisance to a major problem, depending on circumstances. I'm not This is the same scheme that SCO uses. I've never noticed a big problem remembering the numbers. Almost every set of SCO disks I've ever seen has the serial number and activation key written on the label :-) This is a customer added option of course. What is more of a pain is the copyright daemon which checks that you have different serial numbers for the tcp/ip package on every machine. You *must* maintain records of which machine has which serial number. If you re-install the software and get the wrong activation key one of two machines will stop working (either the one you just installed or the one which originally had the number you incorrectly duplicated). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice)
ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer) (07/16/90)
In <1990Jul13.211604.12457@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > [distinction between copy-protection and ISC's authorization method deleted] >What *has* been done is to add an authorization step during installation: >You must enter the serial number of your software (which is printed on the >diskettes) and also enter an "authorization key" (which is printed on a >separate card supplied to you; the card also contains the serial number) >before installation will proceed. So what's the point? To make installations harder and more prone to failure? Things like "authorization keys" and serial numbers that prevent multiple copies of an executable from running on a network really make me mad and will even prevent me from recommending or purchasing a product, no matter how good it is. We have enough trouble with software that doesn't have this extra baggage to keep us busy. Not that I'd buy ISC Unix, anyway ;-) >Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 Opinions are mine, not DSU's. -- Guy Helmer ...!bigtex!loft386!dsuvax!ghelmer DSU Computing Services ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp, helmer@sdnet.bitnet Small is beautiful, but looks aren't everything...
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (07/16/90)
In article <866@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: > [ earlier discussions of Interactive procedures ] >This is the same scheme that SCO uses. > >I've never noticed a big problem remembering the numbers. Almost every set >of SCO disks I've ever seen has the serial number and activation key written >on the label :-) This is a customer added option of course. The serial number and activation keys do not appear on our Xenix/386 and Open Desktop packages. The customer must have added them. Some might be interested in the installation disk sequence associated with Xenix/386 and the ODT-OS/ODT-View packages. Here's how it went for us (5-1/4" media): SCO Xenix 2.3 installation sequence: BOOT N1 [serialization] B1 B2 X1 X2 X3 X4 N1 N2 N3 [serialization] SCO UNIX 3.2 / Windows installation sequence: N1 N2 N1 MASTER N3 N4 N5 [serialization] P1 P2 P3 P4 N1 N2 N3 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 P31 P32 P33 P34 P35 P36 P37
jon@savant.UUCP (Jon Gefaell) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul13.211604.12457@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >I understand that the authorization-key tracking can be anything from a >minor nuisance to a major problem, depending on circumstances. I'm not >going to enter the public fray on that one. (Yes, of course I have >opinions! But I work for ISC; almost any opinion I'd express would be >out of place here.) I just want people to be discussing and making their >decisions based on the authorization-keying, not on an incorrect assumption >that it's copy-protected. >-- Hmm, lemme see... If it _looks_ like a turd , it _smells_ like a turd, it _feels_ like a turd, Well, let's just call it a turd then, shall we? With all the frustrations of computer (Which I dearly love, of course) I tend to want to AVOID uneccessary frustration, even the low end 'minor nuisances' seem too much, especialy when I have to PAY for them! Of course you disclaimed participation in the relative merits of the scheme you just wanted to clarify if the scheme was a turd or not. :) I'm _very_ glad I'm an ESIX customer, many times over. Wonderful pricing (Just got my $99 Rev D. upgrade, with many nice new features and improvments) Nice and competent technical support staff who you can actually call! (and they never seem to have a busy signal....) Hmm, lemme see what else? OH YEAH!... No turds! BTW, standard disclaimers, I have absolutely no relation to ESIX unstandard disclaimers, I usualy am not into toilet humor, 'scuse the turd analogy, it's just what came to my fertile imagination! :) -- +----------- Domain? DOMAIN? We Don't Need No Steeeenkin' Domain! -----------+ | __/\ | | \/~~ | +-savant!jon@virginia.edu {...}!uunet!virginia!savant!jon jeg7e@virginia.edu-+