Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!sei!sei.cmu.edu!pdb From: pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: About Software Piracy! Message-ID: <3690@aw.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 5 Jan 88 11:49:42 GMT References: <2266@crash.cts.com> Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu Reply-To: pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Pat Barron) Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa Lines: 36 In article <2266@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > Lets suppose that the machine had a port on it made for a > dongle, and that multiple dongles could be stacked upon one > another. The software publisher then buys a dongle assignment > from the manufacturer (maybe recieves the dongles and an encoder > program from them). > To run the software you must have the dongle. The computer > manufacture could make the dongles expensive to copy in small > quantities so that few would consider breaking the system through > hardware. I've used software that required a dongle. I'm not sure I'd ever consider buying such a package again. The dongle in question: a) Used one of my only two serial ports, b) Required its own power supply, and c) Had to be replaced several times due to malfunction. After several months of suffering with the thing, I went into DEBUG and patched it so it never looked for the dongle again. At his point, I would not use a package requiring a dongle unless: a) It did not make any of my hardware useless (like taking up a serial port), b) Did not require any external power, c) If it were to break, the vendor guarantees that I will have a new one "absolutely, positively overnight", d) The vendor guarantees that their dongle will not interfere with any other vendors, so that I may run as many dongle-protected packages as I want, simultaneously, and e) There was a patch that could be applied to run the software without the dongle, which would be provided to me by the vendor if they ever went out of business or something like that. --Pat.