Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!GE-CRD.ARPA!EVERHART%ARISIA.DECnet
From: EVERHART%ARISIA.DECnet@GE-CRD.ARPA
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Software protection
Message-ID: <8807121058.AA21097@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 11 Jul 88 16:30:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 23


Re use of LMF for non-DEC vendors:
 Remember please that DEC's reason to go to LMF is mainly that they
want to speed up delivery problems by sending pretty much EVERY one
of their products to everyone (via cdrom), and allowing sales to be
just a piece of paper, not having to maintain zillions of interlocking
kits.
  A non-DEC vendor does NOT have this excuse. I find copy protection to
be sufficiently offensive on our VAX that I will strenuously object
to ANY attempt to use such. Nobody can guarantee he'll be in business
in a year, really, and I can't guarantee my CPU ID or any other number
about my processor will remain unchanged over years. Attempts to tie
software use to being able to call a vendor are VERY risky for purchasers
for this reason alone. They can also cost sales.
 Example of the latter: a CASE vendor lost a bunch of sales at one
of our divisions because they insisted on using the Ethernet address
of the vaxstations to copy protect. Problem was a number of the vaxstations
had only the serial cards, no Ethernet. Company wouldn't change the
product, so were disqualified. They deserved it.
  I believe boycotting copy-protected software to be the appropriate
and correct general response, for all our protection.
Glenn Everhart
Everhart%Arisia.decnet@ge-crd.arpa