Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!acorn!unipalm!leo
From: leo@unipalm.uucp (E.J. Leoni-Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: copy protection
Message-ID: <1991Feb8.113404.4173@unipalm.uucp>
Date: 8 Feb 91 11:34:04 GMT
References: <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com> <6207@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <14127@scorn.sco.COM> <90696@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., Cambridge, England
Lines: 61


As a director of a company taht makes its entire revenue from reselling (mainly
TCP/IP) software, I think I have some valid input:-

	1/. If it were just the odd copy, at the odd educational site -
	no problem.

	2/. The worst offenders are large corporates and small dealers.

	3/. I have been on a site where 100 users were running software
	supplied by us on a 20 copy licence basis - we were unable to
	'prove' this legally - since by the time we contacted the user
	'officially' he declared that the 'software was faulty and had been
	thrown out'. Sideways contact into the company indicated that
	this was not the case....

	4/. Software Piracy cost the end user. Particularly the small end
	user. If every copy of Wordstar in use was paid for, I reckon they 
	could knock it out at about $50 per copy.

	5/. I LIKE the way SUN chose to copy protect PC-NFS - you can 
	copy as many times as you like - you just can't get two copies up
	on the same LAN simultaneously.

	6/. I have come late into this discussion (news only just up inhouse)
	but if SCO are using the same mechanism  - good luck.

	7/. I am also definittely in favour of the scheme that a company called
	Phase II in boston use - to limit either( customers choice) total 
	number of logins allowed OR concurrent users. This seems a very
	fair way.

SOMEONE has to pay for the man years invested in software: Network policing
sreems a very good way of ensuring that people only use what they have 
contracted to use, and that inadvertent over use of a product results
in clear signalling of that fact.


I would welcome any solution that ensures that :-

	(a) Thew customer is not penalised by any copy prootection scheme
	in any way.

	(b) Unless he knowingly or unknowingly exceeds the USE TO WHICH
	HE HAS CONTRACTED WITH THE VENDOR.

That is the crux: If a copy protection makes the product (effectively and/or
practically) unuseable, then people will not buy it.

Conversely if it is widely copied, the only way the vendor and manufacturer
can control it is by constantly bringing out new releases/bug fixes, then
you will get maybe a lot of buggy code released, so that at least you
have to quote your serial number before they will support you!

Not a good idea:-)

What I as a vendor like to see is time bombed evaluation code - You can give
it away, knowing that it won't last - and copy protected software that 
will restrict multiple copies on a single network to the licenced maximum.

That is until we get a government grant to sell and support software :-)