Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!aplcomm!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip
From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Copy Protection Mechanisms
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.171518.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 91 22:15:18 GMT
References: <2983@pensoft.UUCP> <1991Jan4.000354.16593@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: news@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU
Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL
Lines: 52

In article <1991Jan4.000354.16593@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler) writes:
> dany@pensoft.uucp (Dany Guindi) writes:
>>We, Pencom Software, are in the process of putting the finishing touches on
>>our first product and are now looking for ways of protecting our software
>>against indiscriminate copying...
> 
> If you do decide to release anything with copy protection,
> please tell me what software product you are producing, so I (and many others)
> can refuse to buy it.  If your product is worth buying, and priced reasonably,
> people will buy it.  Provide support for your product to registered owners
> via regular updates and bug fixes, and telephone or e-mail help for tech.
> questions.
> 
> 	John Feiler

	I don't wish to start an argument here but I do have a somewhat
	different perspective.  I realize that copyprotection is a swear word,
	not only because of the inconvenience of moving licenses to another
	machine when a licensed machine goes down (as pointed out by a
	previous poster to this discussion thread) but also because of the
	various copy protection schemes tried out on IBM PCs and compatibles
	which made it hard to use the software and impossible to maintain
	backup copies.

	However, I have found that it is a convenience to be able to utilize
	a utility such as DEC's license management facility for VAX/VMS for
	controlling the licensing of software on large numbers of network
	nodes.  My experience indicates that a properly-done, network-oriented
	LMF utility can be a real benefit in a large installation and is no
	bother in a standalone environment.  Such a utility can potentially
	benefit the user not only by adding to convenience in large facility
	license management, but by making the target environment more
	attractive to software developers who have a consistent means for
	protecting their software without inconveniencing licensees.  This
	sort of utility is feasible in an environment such as UNIX which
	already has mechanisms for access control and is an advantage that it
	has vs. MS-DOS where copy protection schemes are kludgey of necessity. 
	I would welcome a good LMF built into the NeXT OS.

	BTW, I believe I saw reference in some third party list somewhere that
	some company offers some sort of license manager.  I've never seen
	details so don't know if it even addresses these sorts of issues.

	Again, this is a personal perspective on a controversial topic and I
	will certainly be interested in seeing the other views I'm sure will be
	expressed.

c.f.waltrip

DDN:  waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu

Opinions expressed are my own.