Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!texbell!uudell!loft386!dsuvax!ghelmer
From: ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: copy protection, authorization
Message-ID: <1990Jul15.230940.4237@dsuvax.uucp>
Date: 15 Jul 90 23:09:40 GMT
References: <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> <604@vidiot.UUCP> <3169@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Jul13.211604.12457@ico.isc.com>
Organization: Dakota State University
Lines: 27

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...