RE: [little OT] Licensing/Implementing in Cocoa/Obj-C
RE: [little OT] Licensing/Implementing in Cocoa/Obj-C
- Subject: RE: [little OT] Licensing/Implementing in Cocoa/Obj-C
- From: "Josh Ferguson" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:15:59 -0500
- Thread-topic: [little OT] Licensing/Implementing in Cocoa/Obj-C
This discussion is definitely getting off-topic, but you're starting to sound a little paranoid here. In fact, there is VERY LITTLE data that microsoft can gather from the information that's transmitted to the server during product activation. Here's a quote from "Inside Windows Product Activation" from
http://www.licenturion.com. To get a full explanation of how Windows Product Activation works, read this article:
http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt. This is a fair implementation of product activation, and the model that most product activation schemes are based on (we actually use the same general concepts with eSellerate's implementation of PA).
"Looking at the technical details of WPA, we do not think that it is as
problematic as many people have expected. We think so, because WPA is
tolerant with respect to hardware modifications. In addition, it is
likely that more than one hardware component map to a certain value
for a given bit-field. From the above real-world example we know that
the PX-32TS maps to the value 0x37 = 55. But there are probably many
other CD-ROM drives that map to the same value. Hence, it is
impossible to tell from the bit-field value whether it is a PX-32TS
that we are using or one of the other drives that map to the same
value.
In contrast to many critics of Windows Product Activation, we think
that WPA does not prevent typical hardware modifications and,
moreover, respects the user's right to privacy."
The one thing that everyone would do good to understand is that writing shareware is a real business. People make money off of it, and if they're lucky, the live off of it. As such, the business of shareware is NOT all about the customers, just like any software company. That's not to say that customer satisfaction doesn't matter - it's undeniably a good business practice to make your customers happy - but if something threatens your business model, you have to react to it. If that means losing one or two sales to paranoid privacy zealots based on unfounded rumors and perceived difficulties, then so be it. There's this attitude that's floating around the software industry that customers have the RIGHT to use your software. I bet just about every person in this group has installed software on multiple computers when they only purchased a license for one. How many people here have two machines, but only bought one Panther upgrade CD to use on both machines? With FileStorm, our license agreement states that each license allows use on ONE MACHINE ONLY (a very typical licensing scheme), yet we have people email in all the time telling us that they've met their activation limit (they've installed it on three computers), and they want it reset. This is a blatant violation of our license agreement, but we almost always gladly reset their limit so they can continue stealing copies of the software from us. It's like walking into best buy and picking up ten copies of a CD, then only buying one and saying that you have the right to the rest since you already payed for one. It IS stealing, and no customer has the right to steal your software from you! BestBuy has many security measures in place that may or may not "infringe on your privacy". For example, they have the right to ask you for your driver's license (which contains a lot of personal information) if for some reason they don't trust your check or credit card. They have cameras in the store watching you at all times, and can pat you down before you leave the store i
f they suspect you of stealing. That is more an invasion of privacy than any PA scheme would allow (and as I said before, PA really ISN'T an invasion of privacy). This has become longer than I expected, so I'll leave you with this question to ponder: when DOES the developer have a right to stop getting ripped off and defend his own software?
-----Original Message-----
From: email@hidden
[
mailto:email@hidden]On Behalf Of Andreas Mayer
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 7:39 AM
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: [little OT] Licensing/Implementing in Cocoa/Obj-C
Am 20.04.2004 um 14:13 schrieb Greg Hurrell:
>
If it weren't of value from a business perspective, do you think that
>
Microsoft would have implemented it?
This is kind of off topic, but ...
Actually, I think Microsoft did introduce it not so much as an anti
piracy method but rather to gather user data.
Why? Because the anti piracy part obviously doesn't work.
That's not to say it generally won't work. Only that it doesn't work as
used by Microsoft.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.