🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.111537.1806@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>Copy protection is generally a complicated thing, and many people
>argue that a complete protection cannot be achieved. And many think
>that forcing the users to use dongles or keydisks is a Bad Thing.
>
And the keydisk/dongle code can be dug out from the program binary and altered
or removed. I am one of those who think that any human-made copyprotection
CAN BE broken by another human. The case is just whether or not breaking
the copy protection is "worth the job".

Look for example at AutoCad. At least the versions officially sold in Finland
are protected with some hardware kludge that plugs into the parallel port.
I've heard about "versions" of AutoCad from which the code related to the
parallel port "kludge" has been removed. As AutoCad is very expensive program,
and a program of very good quality, this definitely has been worth of the job.

I think if a program that costs just some USD 30 had some parallel port
protection, it would not be cracked. The same holds true (I think) for programs
of inferior quality.

..Wolf

PS. Flames about supporting piracy to /dev/null. These were just my thoughts.