Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:21126 comp.protocols.appletalk:5185 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!bin From: bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: Idea for painless copy protection Message-ID: <3858@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> Date: 29 Jan 91 18:37:57 GMT References: Sender: bin@primate.wisc.edu Reply-To: bin@primate.wisc.edu Distribution: na Lines: 30 From article , by starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta): | bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: | |> I believe that something like the proposed scheme is used by PC-NFS, |> and the customers hate it. Consider yourself as the person that has |> to install the UNIQUE copy on each machine, and having to keep track |> of which machine has which serial number. Think about that for |> dozens, or hundreds of machines. | | I don't think your example is suitable for your response. The reason I say | this is that if you maintain a hundred, or even a dozen machines you should | have a profile of each machine. Having to note an additional serial number | is nothing if you maintain reasonable records. And doing so only makes | your job easier in the long run. I agree that good records are essential. But when one maintains a number of machines, any single piece of information that must be kept track of adds to administrative headaches. Plus, it's not just a number on a piece of paper that you must maintain. For the scheme proposed, you have to have an original disk for every single copy. This is far less attractive than a single copy and a site license, or right-to-copy, or license packs. If somebody trashes their copy, would you rather pull out a disk to replace it, or have to dig through a whole box of 'em? I'm not saying it can't be done. Sure, it can be done. I'm saying I'd rather not have to. -- Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu