From: gweil@ibeam.intel.com (Garry A. Weil)
Subject: Re: PC/TCP 2.1 copy protection
Organization: MultiMedia Software Tools Group, Intel Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:49:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.214208.41914@clinicom.com> john@clinicom.com (John Hensley) writes:
>Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
>Path: intelhf!ichips!iWarp.intel.com|uunet!stan!clinicom!john
>From: john@clinicom.com (John Hensley)
>Subject: PC/TCP 2.1 copy protection
>Message-ID: <1992Sep8.214208.41914@clinicom.com>
>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:42:08 GMT
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: CliniCom Incorporated, Boulder, CO
>Lines: 43


>I just got a call from someone at FTP Software informing me that our upgrade to
>2.1 should ship in the next week or two. "Great!" says I -- I've been waiting
>for some of the new features for a long time. But this is no mere notification,
>this is to let me know that among the new nifties is a simple way of ensuring
>my compliance with my site license! Was I *not* complying, I wonder? After all,
>we've only got 8 or 10 PCs on the net, and the license is for a full twenty
>(20) nodes -- seems like it's pretty easy to keep in line as things stand. Well,since this rep is so psyched about the new feature (she didn't even mention the
>other improvements), I inquire further. Each copy of the new kernel is coded,
>I'm told, and sends out its signature onto my Ethernet, so all of my PCs'
>kernels can tell if they have been installed on more than one workstation.

>Uh, hey (something begins to show its horrid self behind the rep's enthusiasm)
>-- so this upgrade means that I have to keep track of which diskettes I used on
>which PC, and make sure if I ever have to reinstall, that I use the right copy,
>and even if I manage to keep them all straight so that all the kernels will
>function, they're going to be taking up more precious memory on the PC and
>generating more traffic on my net, all so *I* can ensure my compliance with the
>site license? "That's correct!" she assures me.

>Now if CliniCom had bought a single license, FTP'd have some meager amount of
>justification; I'd guess it's pretty rare for a business to have one copy of
>a networking package -- kind of pointless -- but we spent several thousand on
>this license. I don't need some gleeful spokesperson calling up and informing
>me that after finally getting a *much needed* upgrade to this software, they're
>*throwing in* copy protection, unnecessary code and more traffic on my net, and
>expecting me to be happy about it. It's not like some game you play once a 
>week, to which the only obstacle is a code wheel -- this is mucking around with
>our resources, both on the PCs and the net. Either remove the crap and trust 
>customers who pay for site licenses *direct from your company*, or admit 
>you're bending us over for the specter of corporate software piracy. 

>Is anyone else torqued about this, or am I letting my bias against copy
>protection cloud my judgment of a handy new network management feature? Any
>suggestions for how FTP could protect their software *without* catching hell
>from people like me? Just doesn't seem likely, given the nature of the product,
>but I'd sure like the current policy to change....

>-- 
>John Hensley           |
>john@clinicom.com      | "You think slower when you graze." -- Holling
>jhensley@nyx.cs.du.edu |

This is just FTP playing catch-up with Sun. PC-NFS has had similar copy 
protection since I started using it a year ago.
----------
Garry Weil

gweil@ibeam.intel.com
gweil@garry.ht.intel.com
garry_weil@htccm2.ht.intel.com
uunet!intelhf!ibeam!gweil

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc