🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun24.173711.17946@eng.umd.edu>, tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) writes...
>Did I misread the original post in which the author wrote:
>>  The program is called "SPAudit for the Macintosh" and it will be free
>>  from the Software Publishers Association (SPA).
> 
>So why does Mr Johnston say:
>>  Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo 
>>  from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" 
>>  software list will be enforced;
> 
>And then Mario Herodotus writes:
>>  If he was really concerned about piracy he'd release it as public
>>  domain.

I can't speak for Mario, but that Johnston guy is clearly an idiot.
In his defense, remember that his article began as follows:

>>Sorry, Matt.  This is a flame;  and no, I haven't seen SPAudit yet,
>>so it's going to be a flame of the worst sort:  biased and uninformed.

Thus, my question "So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora?
warrants a public apology.  My story had Fred "buying" a copy of 
SPAudit, so I can't get away with pointing out that freeware projects 
are frequently undertaken with 'advertise-ware' motives.   ;-)

Several points are unclear from Matt's follow-up:

Regarding the TYPE/CREATOR code registry:

>It is confidential. SPA had to pull teeth to get the list from Apple.
>It also came with a bunch of warnings,threats and disclaimers.
>I guess it shows how much pull SPA realy has in the software industry.

How this information is currently used:

>It looks for the type APPL and then see if its sig is in the database.
[ ... freeware and shareware apps are ignored ...]

A future enhancement:

>SPAudit will have the capablility to scan INSIDE archives.(a future
>version) (i.e Disk Doubler,Compactor and Stuffit)

My question is this:  what happens next?  If SPAudit looks only for 
files with type APPL and creator ???? where "????" is listed in the 
database (and the author of ???? gives his/her permission for SPA 
to search for ????) ... then I guess we can't complain.

But look at Matt's version of the Fred scenario:

>The way SPA is told about a company using illegal software is mostly from
>disgruntled employees finking on there previous employers.

>Lets say a company bought 10 copies of Disk Doubler but is using it on 100
>machines. Spaudit finds the 100 copies and the company can only prove they
>bought 10. 90 unlicensed copies * $69.96 = $6295.50. That would be the
>penalty fee that the company would pay.

According to who?  This is not a law, this is the SPA threatening 
to sue the company for an amount dictated by SPA policy.  Furthermore, 
the SPA auditor only got his foot into the door by threatening to make
public the accusations of a "disgruntled employee".  

THIS IS A WITCH-HUNT!  Think about this for a minute.  A private
organization calls your company.  Fred answers the phone.  Remember Fred?

>The company should get rid of Fred but that's another subject.

Sorry, but Fred is the president's nephew.  How else would a 
knee-biter like Fred get a job with your company.  This is Fred's job, 
so Fred answers the phone.

SPA> We have reason to believe that your company pirates commercial
SPA> software.  If you don't let us come to your facility to audit
SPA> all your software, we'll [ insert suitable threat here ].

Now, SPA only has the word of this "disgruntled employee", so the
available range of threats is limited.  But Fred's main aim is to 
cover his ass, so it doesn't take much to intimidate him.  A few
conference calls later -- SPA gets its way.

They find 100 copies of DiskDoubler -- and only 10 are licensed.

Now what?  

>If they wanted to keep the software then they would pay 
>$6295.50 to Salient software. Llyod and Terry sure
>would benefit then.

Maybe Salient gets some fraction of this.  Fred's boss decided to settle 
out of court, and SPA is realistic -- maybe Fred's company will challenge 
their star witness "Mr. Disgruntled" if the case goes to court.

>I don't know where the fee goes, I guess in SPA's greedy little pockets.

So part of the money goes to SPA, to cover costs.  
Probably a large part, if lawyers are involved.

The other thing that happens is that Fred gets chewed out
for costing his company $6295.50.  It's his job to prevent this
from happening.  Does Fred take all the blame himself?  No way!

So who does Fred blame?  Mr. Disgruntled?  Probably.  The department
head who didn't keep track of DiskDoubler?  That too.  Salient?
Definitely.  That's where the money went.   And Fred had to write
the letter apologizing officially to Lloyd and Terry.

Does this make Fred say "Gee, we had 100 copies of DiskDoubler, and 
I only authorized ten?"  This program must be great!   Let's buy more!  

No.  The first thing Fred does is ask where he can buy some software
that will 1) prevent copying  2) prevent unauthorized applications
from working 3) give Fred back his "control".  Fred doesn't know
diddly about the Mac, so he buys the most pain-in-the-ass program
that he can find.

Lloyd and Terry lose out completely, by the way.  Fred won't even
sign the upgrade requests -- DiskDoubler is "too hard to police".
It's "that program that gave us so much trouble in the past".

In conclusion, if I were one of the "Companies and Developers ...
(pls read)" -- and I do intend to be one of them someday -- 
I would look very carefully at the SPA proposal before endorsing 
this approach to the piracy problem.

-- Bill Johnston (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)

"Don't lend your hand to raise no flag, atop no ship of fools."
                                           -- Robert Hunter