Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!alberta!andrew From: andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: software protection - dongles Message-ID: <576@alberta.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 19:55:36 EDT Article-I.D.: alberta.576 Posted: Wed Jul 3 19:55:36 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 07:14:37 EDT References: <566@alberta.UUCP> <5100077@uiucdcsb> Reply-To: andrew@pembina.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 30 Summary: In article <5100077@uiucdcsb> jabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA writes: > This is just the sort of thing that is most distressful about >the current state of software development. [...] Just think how far the >most powerful programs that are popular today might be by now if all >the software protection was forgotten and someone actually concentrated >all their efforts into the software itself. > >[ these are solely my views ] John Jabusch > CSNET: jabusch%uiuc@csnet-relay.ARPA Hmmm. I agree that dreaming up exotic protection schemes may lower the overall quality of the program due to the extra work done by both the program and the machine, but when you compare the amount of effort that goes into a major product to what it takes to protect it, there shouldn't be that much effect. If there is, then you should have serious doubts about the program ("Who cares if it's buggy? It's unbreakable!"). The point is, there are always going to be some authors who will want to protect their software, and in my opinion, when you have to protect your software, the dongle scheme (who thought that stupid word up, anyway) makes a lot more sense than any of the other methods around. Personally, I think freeware is a great idea : no overhead! -- Andrew Folkins ihnp4!alberta!andrew Underlying Principle of Socio-Genetics : Superiority is recessive.