Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!sgi!calcite!vjs From: vjs@calcite.UUCP (Vernon Schryver) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Interactive and me - An open letter to ISC. Message-ID: <92@calcite.UUCP> Date: 20 Jul 90 05:28:35 GMT References: <3126@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Jul11.164044.7241@sco.COM> <835@mwtech.UUCP> <15684@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Organization: Rhyolite Software, Mountain View, CA Lines: 36 In article <15684@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > > 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." ... In another newsgroup/mailing list, there have been allegations that one vendor's anti-theft scheme consists of a daemon every machine on the network that very frequently broadcasts something. I do not know if these allegations are true. If they are, I would sympathize those who say they refuse to allow machines with this anti-social pathology to be connected to their networks. On a large network, it would be worse than the Apple crime. The number of vendors of UNIX for 386 machines means there would be no reason to tolerate it, unlike the Apple protocol. Given today's network monitoring tools, from LEDs on transceivers to portable analyzers to network monitoring software that can run on many UNIX and most DOS machines, such pollution would be painfully evident. Given public domain IGMP, the ease of using link level multicasts, and "lisense brokers" that can be lisensed HP/Apollo and several other companies, there would be no excuse for an ethical programmer to implement such a thing as has been alledged. During the day, I have a little to do with a network of dozens of ethernets with thousands of machines. There is reason to think no machine on that network is running software from the vendor in question. I have seen more than enough of the Apple broadcasts. Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.uucp