Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!fortune!olson
From: olson@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: Case Study of Fortune 32:16 - (nf)
Message-ID: <3424@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 23:09:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.3424
Posted: Thu May 24 23:09:35 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 31-May-84 19:33:31 EDT
Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 29

#R:orstcs:1464966996:fortune:26600006:000:1227
fortune!olson    May 24 18:24:00 1984

Speaking as the current person in charge of software protection at
Fortune, I don't think you'll be able to manage it (at least for our
more recent products!)  I've heard rumors that various people have
broken our protection algorithms, but have yet to see concrete proof.

If you do manage it, send me the algorithm or clear text as proof.

I will say that I personally (NOT Fortune Systems!) feel that it would
be better to allow sharing of software, and charge for support, updates,
and documentation, since that is where the real costs are.

(I should mention something which has been pointed out before:
possession [AND DISTRIBUTION!] of decrypted Fortune software is probably
evidence enough to go after people on legal grounds; no one expects that
any software protection scheme is unbreakable.  What Fortune (and other
people) are after is a way to show that someone made a significant
effort to pirate our software.  Note the 'AND DISTRIBUTION' above;
possession alone is probably legal...)

	Dave Olson, Fortune Systems
	UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70}!fortune!olson
	ARPA: amd70!fortune!olson@BERKELEY

Note: The above is my personal opinion, and does not constitute
      the policy or opinions of Fortune Systems Corp.