I like the idea of having register codes, but I'm worried that if
just ONE gets out to alt.2600 or IRC, the entire scheme might come back
to haunt ARDI... I'm worried about piracy.
Thinking about it, could it be possible to implement some sort of
a coding scheme which could take something like a credit card number
(provided by the user), and a serial number which would ONLY work with
that card # (provided by ARDI). This would make it highly undesirable
for someone to post a code, given that they're also posting a code which
could very possibly be used against them. However, they could cancel the
card right before they post... :(
Basically, I know it's tough, but transmog files are better
anti-piracy weapons... (then again, someone could uuencode executor and
post it... aargh, but that applies to anything nowadays. I even saw what
someone claimed to be a Windows 95 beta in the /usr/hack/tmp directories
here on Netcom... I didn't try it - I'm on MSDN 2 anyway, so I'll get it
legally in March :)
I'm just getting paranoid I guess, but it seems that codes are a
lower deterrent to piracy than having two versions...
- Chad Page
From owner-executor Wed Feb 22 01:04:26 1995
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nacm.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id BAA29173 for executor-outgoing; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 01:04:26 -0800
Received: from sloth.swcp.com (sloth.swcp.com [198.59.115.25]) by nacm.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA29168 for <executor@nacm.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 01:04:21 -0800
Received: from iclone.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by sloth.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with UUCP id CAA01315; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 02:06:42 -0700
Received: from beaut.ardi.com by mailhost with smtp
(nextstep Smail3.1.29.0 #11) id m0rhCwZ-000YbCC; Wed, 22 Feb 95 02:01 MST
Received: by beaut.ardi.com (linux Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
id m0rhCwZ-00003GC; Wed, 22 Feb 95 02:01 MST
Message-Id: <m0rhCwZ-00003GC@beaut.ardi.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 02:01 MST
From: ctm@ardi.com (Clifford Thomas Matthews)
To: pageone@netcom.com
Cc: executor@nacm.com
Subject: Re: Register codes are nice... but what about piracy?
Chad> I like the idea of having register codes, but I'm
Chad> worried that if just ONE gets out to alt.2600 or IRC, the
Chad> entire scheme might come back to haunt ARDI... I'm worried
Chad> about piracy.
We're very worried about piracy as well. There was considerable
internal debate as to whether or not our DOS product should have the
same serialization features that our NEXTSTEP product has. We believe
we're doing the right thing -- pirates will always be able to locate
and pass around hacked versions of software, but we will reevaluate
our position sometime after 2.0 has shipped.
We want to make it as easy as possible for honest people and companies
to have the latest production and latest experimental versions of
Executor. To date we believe our experiment in the NEXTSTEP community
has been very successful.
I would prefer not to go into all the pros and cons of our scheme on
this list. We know we're sticking our neck out here, but we think
it's the right thing to do.
Chad> Basically, I know it's tough, but transmog files are
Chad> better anti-piracy weapons... (then again, someone could
Chad> uuencode executor and post it... aargh, but that applies to
Chad> anything nowadays.
...
Yes, that's an important point. With the core of Executor (the
Executor binary itself) only about 500k compressed, and with 28.8
modems becoming very common, it will be possible to copy over the
phone a stolen copy of Executor in under three minutes. Doing so will
still be illegal and we will prosecute if ever given the chance, but
we'd prefer to make life easier on our honest customers than to get
caught up in a cat and mouse game with hackers -- they have *lots*
more time on their hands than we do.
chad> I'm just getting paranoid I guess, but it seems that
Chad> codes are a lower deterrent to piracy than having two
Chad> versions...
I sincerely thank you for your concern.
I've cc'd this to the mailing list since I know that many of our
readers will also share your concerns and would like to know our
official position.
--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com
[BTW, for readers new to this list, I personally have been working on
Executor full-time since September of 1986 (not a typo, more than
eight years), and we've had several employees (currently Bill, Vaune,
Mat and Cotton) during that time period. If ARDI goes bust, it will
be very painful for many people, some of whom are owed substantial
back wages. We may have laid back e-mail personas, but we are
actually a very serious company. Doing what we are doing is very
difficult.]
From owner-executor Wed Feb 22 05:50:34 1995
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nacm.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id FAA01313 for executor-outgoing; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 05:50:34 -0800
Received: from cotf.edu (COTF.EDU [198.185.178.3]) by nacm.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA01308 for <executor@nacm.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 05:50:30 -0800
Received: from [198.185.178.69] (davem.cotf.edu) by cotf.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
