Something for the weekend, Sir? [Dolphin 5 Beta3]

Chris,

> If you've spent over a grand on InstallShield and it doesn't give you a
way
> of prompting the user:
>
>     "Dolphin 5 requires version 1,000,000 of the M$ installer, but the
>     version found is only version 500,000.  Do you want to download
>     the updated installer (approx 1.7M) now ?
>         <download> <cancel installation>"
>
> then I'd say you got burned.

Then we got burned.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

Louis

Thanks for your comments. I won't comment at too great a length on the
licensing/activation issue, we'll come back on that though, but just clear
up a couple of misunderstandings, and of course respond on the other issues
you mention.

"Louis Sumberg" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
>
> [snip]
> Going from "an unlimited number of copies" to "up to 5 computers" is a big
> change.  I know I said that already but it's worth repeating.  For
example,
> I just recently had two computers die on me.  If this license had been in
> place I could well be through 3 of my 5 "computers".  Speaking of which,
how
> is a computer defined?  e.g., if I upgrade the cpu or hard disk, is this
the
> same computer or a new one.

It is not (and has never been) our intention to limit the number of times
that a legitimate user may install the s/w, but, for reasons covered briefly
below, we wanted to limit the number of times before hitting a "checkpoint",
i.e. you come back to us and ask for a reset. 5 is definitely too
restrictive, however.

> My experience is that some copy protection schemes cause grief for the
> user/developer.  Remember dongles?  (sp?)  Even if I were to continue
> upgrading to each new version, thereby getting a new allotment of 5
copies,
> my expectation is that were I to stop upgrading, I could still use what I
> had forever.  Clearly, this is not the case with the new license.

No, that is not the intent, although the beta license is not clear. Like I
say, the limit is somewhat arbitrary and we are still discussing the final
form, which might well be "unlimited", with us reserving the right to
deactivate keys that appear to be being used beyond what one might
reasonably expect for a single license - e.g. if we processed 100 requests
for keys against a single purchase id. a single day. Even then the
deactivation would only be temporary until we had checked with the original
purchaser.

Let's get this into perspective. Many software licenses stipulate that the
s/w may only be installed on a single machine at any one time. We have
always allowed installation on multiple machines (for a single user) because
we feel this is necessary for a development tool. We are not going back on
this (or not intending to, whatever impression might have been given). We
want to stop the abuse of fraudulently obtained keys, and the only realistic
way to do this is to require an activation step that allows us to recognise
when a key _might_ have been compromised. Some months ago we discovered that
a well known hacking organization had, when unable to break the source
decryption mechanism in the D4 install, had simply obtained a legitimate key
by fraudulent use of the credit card number of some unfortunate individual.
This key then found its way to the usual places. It often takes some time to
discover this sort of fraud - basically we don't find out about it until
some time after the credit card owner spots the misuse of his/her card - and
by then the key has been available on the net for some considerable time,
and our download figures experience a blip (!). We can block these keys, but
only a long time after the event, and it requires spending time to build a
new installation, and we can't do anything about copies of the old download.

It boils down to this: Either we cover the cost of fraud by simply
increasing prices, or we attempt to minimize fraud. Obviously we want to do
this in the fairest and least inconvenient way possible. We don't think it
is fair to simply pass on the cost of crime to everyone else, so we need to
come up with a better means of software protection. We intend, of course, to
work to make sure this is not unduly burdensome on our customers; for
example someone mentioned that they'd like to be able to copy images from
one machine to another, and we agree that one should be able to do that. The
only real requirement that we have is to have some kind of two stage
activation that allows us to defend ourselves against the kind of fraud I
described above.

One other point: The machine id is simply the "serial number" of the C
drive. Sysinternals have a utility that allows one to change this to
anything one likes
(http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#VolumeId), so one could
quite easily arrange for all one's machines to have the same machine id.
This is not something one would necessarily want to consider changing on a
routine basis, since you may find that other software is "machine locked"
against this id (and not just s/w from Microsoft).

It is worth knowing that the machine id is the C: DOS volume id anyway,
since it allows one to pre-request keys for machines one might want to
activate that do not have net access (or in situations where one does not
have net access).

>...If I were
> a new user, I would not purchase the product.  As a current user, if this
> remains in place, I may well start looking at an exit (migration)
strategy.
>

We'd encourage you to work with us towards an acceptable solution, but
that's entirely up to you.

> I just installed beta3, here are a few odds and ends:
>
> Custom Setup, Help & Documentation Files shows "This feature requires 0MB
on
> your hard drive."  (Maybe this is correct at this point in time.)
>
> Dolphin Options, System Folder ... there are many items missing, e.g.,
> defaultFont.

They have moved under the "development system" object (an instace of
RefactoringSmalltalkSystem or SmalltalkSystem). The location of these items
under 'System Folder' wasn't really right, more of an implementation
convenience.

> CHB, comments window ... the vertical scrollbar seems to be partially
> hidden.
>

So it does, thanks (#764).

> http://www.object-arts.com/dolphin5/Images/FirstRun.gif ... "The page
cannot
> be found".

Which is referenced from?

Regards

Blair

> Let's get this into perspective. Many software licenses stipulate that the
> s/w may only be installed on a single machine at any one time. We have
> always allowed installation on multiple machines (for a single user)
because
> we feel this is necessary for a development tool. We are not going back on
> this (or not intending to, whatever impression might have been given). We
> want to stop the abuse of fraudulently obtained keys, and the only
realistic
> way to do this is to require an activation step that allows us to
recognise
> when a key _might_ have been compromised. Some months ago we discovered
that
> a well known hacking organization had, when unable to break the source
> decryption mechanism in the D4 install, had simply obtained a legitimate
key
> by fraudulent use of the credit card number of some unfortunate
individual.
> This key then found its way to the usual places. It often takes some time
to
> discover this sort of fraud - basically we don't find out about it until
> some time after the credit card owner spots the misuse of his/her card -
and
> by then the key has been available on the net for some considerable time,
> and our download figures experience a blip (!). We can block these keys,
but
> only a long time after the event, and it requires spending time to build a
> new installation, and we can't do anything about copies of the old
download.

I think it's worth pointing out that the downloads "blip" that Blair
mentioned occurred shorthly after the fraudulent key was acquired and
amounted to 8Gb of download above that which we normally see for a month.
That's around 1000 copies of Dolphin!! Of course we've no proof that this
wasn't caused by some other phenomenon but it is also strange that month on
month we see around 1Gb of downloads more than can be accounted for by
legitimate purchases or trial applications.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

Blair,

> No, that is not the intent, although the beta license is not clear. Like I
> say, the limit is somewhat arbitrary and we are still discussing the final
> form, which might well be "unlimited", with us reserving the right to
> deactivate keys that appear to be being used beyond what one might
> reasonably expect for a single license - e.g. if we processed 100 requests
> for keys against a single purchase id. a single day. Even then the
> deactivation would only be temporary until we had checked with the
original
> purchaser.

Thanks for the lengthy missive.  I feel much more comfortable now.  I'm not
too pleased with the general direction that installers are taking -- the
days where you bought something and had it in hand (a diskette or CD) and
you could go to a remote cabin in the woods and install it and program to
your heart's content -- are becoming a memory, a tale we can tell our kids
in years to come.  My favorite model has always been the old Borland
No-Nonsense license agreement -- i.e., it's like a book.  But I understand
the market forces you're working under, especially the cheapskates out
there -- it amazes me that kids can spend $150 for a pair of tennis shoes,
but can't come up with $15 bucks to buy a music CD or $50 bucks (or whatever
it is) to buy at least the low-end Dolphin.  Oh well, enough of that.

I think that a return to "unlimited" would be in your best interest, and
that the activation scheme, with monitoring for large numbers of
activations, as you described (checking with the original purchaser), is a
good compromise.  It should not discourage people (programmers and MIS
supervisors) from purchasing the product and should give you some degree of
piracy protection.

> We'd encourage you to work with us towards an acceptable solution, but
> that's entirely up to you.

I'm not going anywhere -- how do you spell "addiction"?  *s*

> > http://www.object-arts.com/dolphin5/Images/FirstRun.gif ... "The page
> cannot
> > be found".
>
> Which is referenced from?

It was in the install dialog, I'm not sure exactly where -- there's a button
to press, which I did, because I found the process just a wee bit confusing
(machine ID, serial number, this/that/and the other, oy vey).

A few other odds and ends:

Previously reported, open a CHB, type ALT-C and system hangs.  I forget the
disposition of this, but I think some other people had this problem too.

PB: If focus is on the righthand view, then most File menu items are
disabled, e.g., you have to click on one of the lefthand views to enable the
menus and install a new package.

Comment for PersonalMoney package has a stray "2" (PersonalMoneyShell show
2) in it that should be removed.

I'm pleased to see the option in the Flipper Inspector that lets one view
non-Dolphin windows.  I've found it helpul already with ActiveX windows (in
inspecting, debugging, building, the whole ball of wax).

Thanks again,

-- Louis

Andy,

> I think it's worth pointing out that the downloads "blip" that Blair
> mentioned occurred shorthly after the fraudulent key was acquired and
> amounted to 8Gb of download above that which we normally see for a month.
> That's around 1000 copies of Dolphin!! Of course we've no proof that this
> wasn't caused by some other phenomenon but it is also strange that month
on
> month we see around 1Gb of downloads more than can be accounted for by
> legitimate purchases or trial applications.

Oh, but think of the publicity value:

    "Dolphin Smalltalk, favoured programmng tool of hardcore crackers
everywhere"

C++ and Java can't claim *that!*

> Andy Bower

    -- chris

Blair,

This sounds much more encouraging.  Thanks.

I shall wait and keep hoping.

BTW, would it be a good idea to allow multiple registrations on the web page
?  That might be too much effort, or you may think it'd encourage abuse, but
it'd reduce the *perceived* impact of the scheme (i.e. promote the idea that
you are "one of the good guys" rather than grasping M$-alikes) as well as
being slightly less inconvenient for us users.

> Blair

    -- chris

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
>
> I think it's worth pointing out that the downloads "blip" that Blair
> mentioned occurred shorthly after the fraudulent key was acquired and
> amounted to 8Gb of download above that which we normally see for a month.
> That's around 1000 copies of Dolphin!! Of course we've no proof that this
> wasn't caused by some other phenomenon but it is also strange that month
on
> month we see around 1Gb of downloads more than can be accounted for by
> legitimate purchases or trial applications.

Andy,

a few more points:

a) I do not think that a new scheme will succeed in in converting those 1000
downloads into sales (to be precise no scheme would do that). Those guys
just did not want to pay, and only neglectable amount of them would pay it
if the had to, and even more it is very likely that those few would have
ordered afterwards anyways if they got serious with Dolphin. So your loss is
basically bandwith (it depends on your provider but for estimate on getafile
8gb = $12), a few licences, and anger that someone is getting away with it.
But I think there is no way around it with selling software.

b) I do not think that even new scheme will stop determined cracker, so it
is very likely you will have hacked version in the wild anyway. But you will
annoy (at least) regular God fearing customers, and it is quite possible
that it would cause serious problems to them. (it is sad but the fact that
you have been hacked is actually a proof of your success).

c) if I were choosing today, I would not go Dolphin way because of the
activation. (I must confess I did not have energy to try the beta 3 for the
same reason).  Up to now you have been able to create a new Smalltalk
customers, and get a lot of fresh blod into the market, which I personally
believe is your strongest comercial point. From technology point, new
Dolphin is even more capable of doing so, and I think it is ready to
blossom, since now it is very mature, you have solid customer base, you can
show real applications, and product is very good. But the activation scheme
will put stop to it.

-------

Another unrelated thing, which is actualy not my concern, but I thought
maybe it is good that you take a look at it. I have seen a few posts about
the recent financial position of Digital River at the
alt.comp.shareware.authors. Am I correct that Digibuy (the service you are
using) is their subsidiary? While the rummors can be completely false, maybe
you could be a bit more alert on the issue, and even consider an alternate
registration facility so that you do not have all eggs in one basket?

Davorin Rusevljan

Davorin,

> a) I do not think that a new scheme will succeed in in converting those
1000
> downloads into sales (to be precise no scheme would do that). Those guys
> just did not want to pay, and only neglectable amount of them would pay it
> if the had to, and even more it is very likely that those few would have
> ordered afterwards anyways if they got serious with Dolphin. So your loss
is
> basically bandwith (it depends on your provider but for estimate on
getafile
> 8gb = $12), a few licences, and anger that someone is getting away with
it.
> But I think there is no way around it with selling software.

I don't for one moment think that we'd end up with 1000 more licenses.
However, for reasons I'll mention in another post, I think it is our moral
obligation to attempt to stop piracy and I'm afraid this is likely to come
at a cost to the legitimate user (additional inconvenience) and to the
developer (extra development work and loss of some customers such as,
perhaps, yourself).

> b) I do not think that even new scheme will stop determined cracker, so it
> is very likely you will have hacked version in the wild anyway. But you
will
> annoy (at least) regular God fearing customers, and it is quite possible
> that it would cause serious problems to them. (it is sad but the fact that
> you have been hacked is actually a proof of your success).

I agree that the really determined cracker could probably get through but,
actually, the encryption scheme has stopped them so far. The cracked
download includes a message, "Encryption: soup" which probably refers to the
fact that they found they'd have to debug through a load of "soupy"
Smalltalk code to break it rather than just C++. Since there aren't many
third party Smalltalk debuggers out there the scheme is relatively secure
while it remains in Smalltalk.

> c) if I were choosing today, I would not go Dolphin way because of the
> activation. (I must confess I did not have energy to try the beta 3 for
the
> same reason).  Up to now you have been able to create a new Smalltalk
> customers, and get a lot of fresh blod into the market, which I personally
> believe is your strongest comercial point. From technology point, new
> Dolphin is even more capable of doing so, and I think it is ready to
> blossom, since now it is very mature, you have solid customer base, you
can
> show real applications, and product is very good. But the activation
scheme
> will put stop to it.

Frankly, this attitude which has been also been echoed by some others, makes
me rather angry.

(a) That you comment on something that you've refused to try. If nothing
else this is rather against the spirit of a beta where the aim is to shake
out problems before the release.

(b) Given the fact that Blair has already pointed out that the intent of the
activation is not to lock images to particular machines and not to limit the
number of machines that a legitimate user may be able to use.. you are
saying that your choice of Smalltalk would be governed by the inconvenience
of a 30 second trip to an online machine to get an activation key. I'm
afraid this doesn't say much for the real value of our product.

> Another unrelated thing, which is actualy not my concern, but I thought
> maybe it is good that you take a look at it. I have seen a few posts about
> the recent financial position of Digital River at the
> alt.comp.shareware.authors. Am I correct that Digibuy (the service you are
> using) is their subsidiary? While the rummors can be completely false,
maybe
> you could be a bit more alert on the issue, and even consider an alternate
> registration facility so that you do not have all eggs in one basket?

Thanks for the info, I'll look into it.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> However, for reasons I'll mention in another post, I think it is our moral
> obligation to attempt to stop piracy and I'm afraid this is likely to come
> at a cost to the legitimate user (additional inconvenience) and to the
> developer (extra development work and loss of some customers such as,
> perhaps, yourself).

I am not sure I agree or I do not follow your arguments here, but it would
be better if I await another post before (and if) I comment.

I do not think I will leave Dolphin in the short term, since I have several
critical apps in Dolphin, and that is not something that can or should be
changed over night.

> Frankly, this attitude which has been also been echoed by some others,
makes
> me rather angry.

My intentions are realy not to make you or anyone else angry. And since I
highly respect you and Blair, I would like to ask you to accept my words as
my serious concern, not as a wish to make a war with words.

> (a) That you comment on something that you've refused to try. If nothing
> else this is rather against the spirit of a beta where the aim is to shake
> out problems before the release.

I did try beta1 and beta2, and reported several smaller defects. The
machines on which I do beta are not connected to the internet, some of them
could be connected and some not. But mostly important I do beta on my free
time and I was doing it out of enthusiasm mostly.

> (b) Given the fact that Blair has already pointed out that the intent of
the
> activation is not to lock images to particular machines and not to limit
the
> number of machines that a legitimate user may be able to use.. you are
> saying that your choice of Smalltalk would be governed by the
inconvenience
> of a 30 second trip to an online machine to get an activation key. I'm
> afraid this doesn't say much for the real value of our product.

Developers are allways in weaker position to the vendors of development
tools. We make significant investment when choosing your products, and take
risks. I do not think just on the purchase price, but also on vested
development time and effort. The activation mechanism (no matter how it is
implemented) is puting this allready distorted relation out of the bounds I
am willing to accept if I have a choice.

In my professional life I have been once locked out by the development tool
that had a dongle which has been broken by the cleaning lady, and I had to
make a minor but important modification on the criticall app, which I was
not able to do for a month until replacement came. Activation has smaller
risks than dongle, but not much smaller ones, and they are of the allmost
same nature. I do not wish you so, but as anyone else you can go out of
bussines,  my internet conmnection could be unreachable, or even my country
can get under the trade ban.

I do not see anything that can justify such risks, and why should I take
them if I have any other choice. Therefore for the new product, you would
not pass my initial check list as a vendor, as simply as that. It is a big
"No-No I do not want to have bussines with you under such terms (unless I
really have to)" type of thing. It has nothing to do with quality of your
product (which I find to be great), you get disqualified on bussines
considerations even before quality gets into the picture.

And lastly I do not see that you will in the longer run benefit from it
financially. That is why I think this deal is of Loose-Loose variant.

Davorin Rusevljan

"Blair McGlashan" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> > http://www.object-arts.com/dolphin5/Images/FirstRun.gif ... "The page
> cannot
> > be found".
>
> Which is referenced from?

activation web page I think.

Davorin Rusevljan

Blair,

> One other point: The machine id is simply the "serial number" of the C
> drive. Sysinternals have a utility that allows one to change this to
> anything one likes
> (http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#VolumeId), so one
could
> quite easily arrange for all one's machines to have the same machine id.
> This is not something one would necessarily want to consider changing on a
> routine basis, since you may find that other software is "machine locked"
> against this id (and not just s/w from Microsoft).
>
> It is worth knowing that the machine id is the C: DOS volume id anyway,
> since it allows one to pre-request keys for machines one might want to
> activate that do not have net access (or in situations where one does not
> have net access).

That could be useful, and thanks for passing it along to us.  One fear is
that hackers will figure it out in a big hurry.  Either way, it could help
me get back on track with some testing of beta 3 (not being able to have an
image follow me has me all but shut down right now).  The bad news is that
on renaming the volume on this box to match my machine at home, I can't get
the image from home to open here.  I could have made any number of mistakes,
but, is it possible that there's more to it?  Better yet, can you give me a
procedure for getting my home image to load here?

Have a good one,

Bill

---
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

"Blair McGlashan" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
> We'd encourage you to work with us towards an acceptable solution, but
> that's entirely up to you.

how about using Live update for compromised key check-up? It seems much less
intrusive.

When user goes to do live update, inform him that his key, ip, hard disk#,
etc is going to be comunicated to the Object-Arts, and checked upon the
compromised database. If it is compromised key, deny him a patch and inform
him in some horrifying legalise that he is about to be sold in slavery if he
does not either purchase the valid key or uninstall the software. Also if
patch is denied, you can start issuing the same warning each time dolphin is
started (could be cleared by new key), but do not fry anything. Make it
nuisance but keep it operational.

Anyone who is using Dolphin at least half seriously will use Live update to
keep his image fresh and clean. From those who do not, you will never see a
dime no matter what you do.

I think I could even live with Dolphin asking me by it self to do the live
update once a month. (but again, no fry-ing, or becomming nasty if I chose
not to).

Davorin Rusevljan

Andy Bower wrote:
> ACTIVATION
>
> We've decided to adopt an MS style activation scheme for D5 to counteract
> some piracy that we've seen occurring with Dolphin 4. The activation system
> shouldn't be any more inconvenient than the old scheme (providing it works
> correctly) and in many ways should be easier to use since you won't have to
> remember lots of age old upgrade keys. The system works like this:

I *really* hate thieves, and I hope no-one complaining about the
activation mechanism in this newsgroup steals music i.e. tapes/rips a
friend's album or CD, shares illegal MP3s etc. Anyway... to my point.

The previous company I founded was quite successful - 6 years, 30+
employees, innovative (proprietary) solutions bought by quite a number
of large clients. VC investment. Then we had some badluck, the market
went south, and we went into administration. End of company. Very angry
clients, who bought into our software. I now have a new company, and
part of the sales pitch is that everything is in escrow, so if anything
happens to us (hit by a bus/get sick of software/just can't make a
living out of it etc.) every customer gets all the source and tools for
our product, pronto.

That little story illustrates *my* greatest fear with this new
activation scheme. I cannot have my ability to continue to use a product
  dependent on the continuing existance of the vendor, or their
continued support for a given business model. Maybe the vendor gets
bought out, maybe worse. Maybe a principal gets a life threatening
disease. Maybe they go postal after discovering that the guy two doors
down is the one that posted the serial number to the warez site. I can
handle having no further upgrades, but to find a product I have payed
for and depend on suddenly innoperative for ever ... double plus ungood.

I'm of course *not* saying anything about the chances of this happening,
but as a purchaser you hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Please guys, reconsider. Great product, shitty world.

-------------------------
Antony Blakey
mailto:[hidden email]
Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Adelaide, South Australia

Antony,

I understand this view and, to be honest, I think it the most sensible of
the arguments put forward so far. What about if we offer the option to have
a full unlimited key delivered to your door by snail-mail? One company we
know (www.seapine.com) who make the bug tracking system we use have a
similar option  (floating vs. fixed licenses) but notice that the floating
license is 2x as expensive as the fixed one.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Object Arts Ltd.
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

Andy,

After D5 is released, please re-read the other posts with this in mind - I
think you'll start so see more than a little overlap.  It is precisely that
view (presuming to be able to speak for others here) that we expected would
drive potential customers away from your excellent product.



> What about if we offer the option to have
> a full unlimited key delivered to your door by snail-mail? One company we
> know (www.seapine.com) who make the bug tracking system we use have a
> similar option  (floating vs. fixed licenses) but notice that the floating
> license is 2x as expensive as the fixed one.

2x doesn't really bother me, well assuming I have an accurate idea of the
price.  Going back to the first commercial release, I vaguely recall having
two licences of my own, and dropped back to one only after you changed the
license agreement to allow multiple machines.  Well, it could also be that
the portable I was carrying switched from personal to UF property and it got
covered that way.

One point of haggling though: I really don't envision using the web
deployment kit, mostly because it, well, doesn't work.  Fault for that
aside, I really liked the "buy what you use" model of the past.  Since this
is a closed forum, I'll also restate my other objection to the WDK: there
was no way to make an applet load with a particular VM or not at all, and
that's really something that I'd require before being willing to use it.
So, if you want to go with some kind of higher cost license, that would be
something I'd consider.  Of course, if it still has the "OA vaporizes and
I'm stuck" problem, then it's of lesser value.  If one higher-priced
purchase would get the keys to the kingdom, what's to stop hackers from
doing that and giving out the keys :(

Have a good one,

Bill

---
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

Bill,

> If one higher-priced
> purchase would get the keys to the kingdom, what's to stop hackers from
> doing that and giving out the keys :(

Because the key would be delivered to the credit card holders registered
address; this effectively guarantees a genuine purchase.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

Andy,

> Because the key would be delivered to the credit card holders registered
> address; this effectively guarantees a genuine purchase.

True.  But what about the sleaze-bucket who gives the purchased key to his
friends and then claims to be ill-used when you shut him off?  Basically
what I'm suggesting is a group-purchase of sorts.

Assuming you go forward with this approach, I'd suggest making an electronic
delivery key (perhaps even time-bombed) available immediately, to be
followed by the snail-mail delivery of the real thing.  That keeps the speed
of electronic delivery and gives you some security.  Still, I think you're
heading down the usual road of copy protection: only the honest user gets
hurt.  Sorry, it's just been tried too many times by too many vendors.  Copy
protection was reasonably common (or at least not uncommon) and then dropped
off.  Why?

Have a good one,

Bill

---
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

Andy Bower wrote:
IMHO, I think you should stick with the current model, but NEVER deliver
a normal key via a non-physical address. When I purchase online, send me
a node-locked key that will work for 30 days, and send the real key (D4
style) via registered mail to the CC address. (But what about people
without a CC?) Up your price a (tiny!) bit to cover the physical costs.
And if possible, don't make me re-unlock when I get the real key - I
should just put it in a dialog and forget about it.

Now, normally a floating license would cost more, but usually that's
because mulitple people are using the product, and the license mechanism
is designed to control the concurrency of that access. In your case (and
I'm a new user, so I'm going by what I read in the group), most people
have it installed on many machines for testing and geographic
distribution purposes, which is not the same thing. I'd be doing that if
I didn't use a removable hard drive between work locations.

Also, keep in mind that Dolphin Pro is $600 here, and currency
relativities aside, that's a reasonably expensive purchase. $1200 is
also more than VW for small VARs, and VA via Partnerworld (ignoring the
VW royalty). Only MT ($1600) would be more expensive.

I know it's worth way more than that in productivity, but that's still a
really difficult argument to make for most people. I don't mean
comparatively difficult i.e. which version of ST, I mean difficult to
convince people to 'Try Smalltalk'. I'm using Common Lisp, Ocaml and
Haskell integrated with Dolphin for a pending for-sale product, so you
can imagine how tough an argument that was :)

<Completely OT>
BTW: I bought Dolphin rather than MT first even thought I need to
produce IE Plugins i.e. ActiveX controls. I did not buy on the basis of
price, but rather on aesthetic appeal, and the activity of the
community. If I paid you the cost of an MT license, would you prioritise
that capability? If so, how long? Is that amount chump-change? Just
curious. I may buy MT as well.
</>

"rush" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...
>
> "Blair McGlashan" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:[hidden email]...
> > We'd encourage you to work with us towards an acceptable solution, but
> > that's entirely up to you.
>
> how about using Live update for compromised key check-up? It seems much
less
> intrusive.
> ...

That is an interesting idea, but it would have to be entirely out in the
open as there have been some cases where similar schemes have been uncovered
and (quite rightly IMO) been regarded as an invasion of peoples' privacy.
Also once a Dolphin release "settles down" the frequency of (and need to
apply) Live Updates becomes very low.

Regards

Blair

Antony, Andy, Blair,

> IMHO, I think you should stick with the current model, but NEVER deliver
> a normal key via a non-physical address. When I purchase online, send me
> a node-locked key that will work for 30 days, and send the real key (D4
> style) via registered mail to the CC address. (But what about people
> without a CC?) Up your price a (tiny!) bit to cover the physical costs.
> And if possible, don't make me re-unlock when I get the real key - I
> should just put it in a dialog and forget about it.

Interesting.  Andy seemed comfortable with physical distribution of keys, so
this would probably fix it.  The electronic keys would give immediate
access, and the user would not be hindered from protecting their investments
in doom scenarios (Davorin is quite right that these things deserve serious
attention).


> Now, normally a floating license would cost more, but usually that's
> because mulitple people are using the product, and the license mechanism
> is designed to control the concurrency of that access. In your case (and
> I'm a new user, so I'm going by what I read in the group), most people
> have it installed on many machines for testing and geographic
> distribution purposes, which is not the same thing. I'd be doing that if
> I didn't use a removable hard drive between work locations.

One thing to keep in mind: I have always been either covered by multiple
licenses, and/or been permitted to make multiple installations.  I have
never knowingly "cheated" (read stolen from our friends at OA).

Have a good one,

Bill

---
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]