🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug3.135717.3766@fnbc.com> djc@fnbc.com (Dan Crimmins) writes:
> In article <1992Aug1.191738.5701@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van  
> Huizen) 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?
> 
> i've always felt that the only acceptable form of protection is a floating  
> network license.  we should be able to buy a license for 5 simultaneous users  
> for an app, and have it available on all machines to all users.  if it  
becomes  
> popular enough that a 5-user license is insufficient, we'll buy more (or  
> perhaps an unlimited site-license).
> 
> licensing schemes that are restricted based on username or hostid are  
> intolerable.
> 
> ---
> dan crimmins
> djc@fnbc.com
Hmmm,

What do you think of floating per user licenses? The idea is you purchase X  
number of licenses. As each distinct user fires up the app a license is  
permanently consumed for that user. This user can use the app from any machine  
on the network. When you want more users to have a license you "buy" them over  
the phone, fax, email, etc. Then you get a new key back which upgrades the  
quantity of total licenses.
--
David Williams -- dlw@atherton.com -- NeXTMail welcome
	          dlw@netcom.com   -- NeXTMail welcome