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.