Article View: comp.sys.next.software
Article #285Re: Copy Protection (was: Re: WordPerfect Update (NOT!))
From: Matthew Dillon
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1992 19:19
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1992 19:19
33 lines
1672 bytes
1672 bytes
In article <1992Aug1.191738.5701@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.194615.24025@cs.yale.edu>
>nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>
>Speaking as a company that is reluctantly considering copy-protecting one
>of our products, I'd like to know if end-users find any of the current
>schemes truly acceptable. We've been weighing the pros and cons of
>registering to a username or machine ID. Neither seens completely
>acceptable to us.
>
>What do you folks think?
>
>Gordon
Better to serialize each copy of the software you sell. There are
plenty of serialization methods (e.g. object module reordering) that
are nearly impossible to reverse engineer. This works if you sell
direct.
-Matt
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Van Huizen vox: 619.488.9411 fax: 619.488.3045
>Metrosoft gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
>----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
Berkeley, Ca. 94708 ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
USA
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<dillon.0kn0@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!overload!dillonReferences:
<1992Jul31.194615.24025@cs.yale.edu> <1992Aug1.191738.5701@metrosoft.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!overload!dillon From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.software Subject: Re: Copy Protection (was: Re: WordPerfect Update (NOT!)) Distribution: world Message-ID: <dillon.0kn0@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> References: <1992Jul31.194615.24025@cs.yale.edu> <1992Aug1.191738.5701@metrosoft.com> Date: 3 Aug 92 11:19:51 PST Organization: Not an Organization Lines: 34