One person wrote and asked these questions:

> I would like to give you some of my opinions as a software consumer:
>
> 1.  Piracy protection schemes should be easy to use.  Too many hoops and
I'm
> going to get annoyed.

I absolutely agree. We want the process to be virtually transparent.


>  2.  Piracy protection schemes should actually do something.  Forcing me to
> type in a complex 75-character string at install doesn't really prevent me
> from copying the disk and the installation code.

Again I agree. That's why profiling the PC must be a critical component in
creating the "75-character string" (although we're only planning on using a
ten-letter string).


> 3.  Piracy protection schemes, on a PC at least, should account for the
> possibility that most, if not all, of the hardware could change over the
> lifetime of the computer.

That's much harder to do. The PC has to be profiled somehow and it simply
can't be said to be the same PC if all or most of its innards are swapped
out. Moreover, while changing out components may be somewhat more common
among this group, I don't think that that's the case with most people's
computers. I suspect that 99% of all PC's never get their cases open during
their lifetimes.


>  4.  If I buy a license for one computer, I should be able to easily
transfer
> this license to a different computer.  This is a separate issue from copy
> protection, but I really bristle at Microsoft's stance that the license
stays
> with the PC, period.  (For Windows, at least.)

That too is very hard to do. Only the machine itself can be profiled, not the
user (at least not until we have the technology to suck a drop of blood out
of you every time you want to run an application and check your DNA to see
that you are who you say you are). Any other method would depend on the honor
and trust of the user, and you can see how well that's worked in general.

But in general, we agree. The way that we're going to work around that
complaint is to provide three licenses for every one the user purchases.


> Someone suggested a dongle (of some sort), which seems to be a good
solution
> to me.  It's more trouble than it's worth to reverse engineer, it clearly
> limits the software to one PC (at least one at a time, which may be good
> enough), and it's easy.  It's easy to install and easy to transfer to a new
> PC.  Cost could be an issue, but you could probably work it into the
purchase
> price.

It's true, this would be very expensive. Worse, it would almost certainly
lead to a mess if every software manufacturer did this. The user's PC would
have all sorts of mechanical dodads sticking out of it -- and many of them
would be bound to lead to conflicts and thus be non-compatible. I would think
that the most likely result of doing this by a large percentage of the
software developers would be a truly grumpy set of users.


> Another method that might work would be an activation scheme like Microsoft'
> I have some reservations about this method because:
>  1.  If I reinstall the software (which is, or should be, within my rights)
> do I have to re-activate?  Will I have to call Microsoft in the event that
I
> reinstall?  If so, how freakin' long will I be on hold?  On whose dime?

We're planning on providing you with three licenses for every one you
actually purchase. The intent is to allow you to change out your PC three
times over the history of the license, although you could, if you wished,
installed the software on three machines simultaneously upon first
registration. This will be explained at the time of purchase and whichever
route you wished to take would be your choice.

The intent here is to require absolutely no phone calls to anyone. We have no
more desire to speak to the customers than does Microsoft :-).

More seriously, every customer call is an indication of some form of design
failure. Good software design is as much about minimizing the need for a
customer to call as it is about providing a valuable service or product.


>  2.  How long is my license good for?  Will there come a day when, if I
want
> to re-activate my software, Microsoft will decline re-activation,
suggesting
> that instead I purchase the new, improved upgrade?

Our intention is to provide perpetual licenses and free upgrades. We will see
recurring income only after the user has exhausted his three licenses on
three different PC's, or on one PC that has been substantially modified three
times. We more or less expect to see those "second purchases" three to ten
years after the first. From our perspective, that's a long time to wait for
the second $50 payment. It seems fair.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *