🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec17.230932.16643@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:
>A thread is just starting up on comp.sys.mac.programmer on the idea of
>using a computer's serial number embedded in a ROM chip as a means of
>uniquely identifying a given computer.  This could easily be used in
>a copy protection scheme.  I'm told NeXT computers work that way and
>I wonder what all of you think of this kind of copy protection?

I can tell that I was most pissed off when I had my CPU board replaced
under warrantee, and my copy of Mathematica stopped working.

>Does is work well?  Is it annoying when machine servicing is required?
>Is the chip soldered to the board?  What do you all think?

No, the aforementioned event prompted me to patch the kernel to return
the old serial number.  Is it soldered on?  I don't know.  It would be
nice if the serial number/ethernet address device was in a socket, so
that when hardware is repaired or replaced, the address can stay with
the user.  The service people don't seem to do this; or at least no in
my experience.

>I think it's a pretty good idea and could solve a lot of problems in
>the software industry.  I seem to be one of the few people in
>comp.sys.mac.programmer who thinks so.  What have been your
>experiences?

You either trust your users or not.  The approach that I like is to
give the user some piece of information that needs to be supplied to
enable the application.  This piece of information uniquely identified
the *owner* of the software.  That way, if it gets "loose", you know
who to trace it back to, and thus who violated the terms of the
software license agreement.  This is the approach that I like, and the
one that I use for the software that I write.

louie