Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Interactive and me - An open letter to ISC.
Message-ID: <15684@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 90 03:32:07 GMT
References: <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Jul11.164044.7241@sco.COM> <835@mwtech.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Lines: 26

In article <835@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes:
>Please, can anybody explain how serialization "prevents" software piracy?

In the case where you have multiple machines networked together,
serialization does prevent (well, make harder anyway) you from buying
one copy of the software and installing it everywhere.  That's the
function of the "copyright daemon."  You are not prevented from
installing the same copy on several machines NOT networked together.  It
seems the former case is what has these vendors scared.

The error (I think) lies in coupling serialization so tightly with
installation.  The multi-CPU user has a legitimate interest in being
able to install all his bought-and-paid-for copies of software from one
single set of diskettes, rather than from 15 different media sets.  That
way he KNOWS the software is identical everywhere -- nobody slipped in a
"silent upgrade" ('But we only changed FIVE LINES OF CODE!!!')  or a
duplicating error between the manufacture of sets #48327 and #48450.
There ought to be a second serialization operation which can be performed
after all software is installed (from any media set).

These are just standard site licensing kinds of issues.  But a 386 UNIX
"site" might just be 2 machines.  UNIX vendors should accomodate small
sites, not just Fortune 500 megasites.
-- 
"Just when we finally got good at this, we    \_i_/   Tom Neff
run out of planets." - a Voyager scientist   --[o]--  tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM