Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

  1. #1
    Lowell Williams Guest

    Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy


    I was infuriated to find out recently that Infragistics now demands that you
    install a tool they call "DPAC" (Digital Product Activation Certificate)
    about which they say:

    "The activation process identifies your machine by a unique one-way hash
    code generated from the machine's hardware. This hash code can be used to
    identify the machine, but it reveals no private information about the machine
    or its contents. In fact, because the hash code is one-way, it cannot be
    deciphered, nor can it be used to discern any information about your machine."
    source:http://www.infragistics.com/support/....asp?find=dpac

    Do you remember the excitement Intel generated with unique ID's for Pentium
    III's? I don't care WHAT it's collecting. They have no business requiring
    me to allow them ANY information about my system in order to use a component.

    It does nothing but add complications for the developer. Just read the FAQ's
    page to find out how much more it may complicate your development job.

    Please join with me in getting Infragistics management to discontinue this
    policy of "Big Brother" interference.

    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    Todd B - Agendum Software Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    Lowell,

    As a 3rd party developer we understand the reasoning behind what
    Sheridan/Infragistics is trying to do however we also understand your
    concerns on this as well . Here at Agendum, we are also working on a new
    registration system so we would love to hear more of what you have to say
    about this subject. With that in mind, we would like to know your thoughts
    on this because we obviously do not want to produce something that would not
    be workable or acceptable to developers and users alike.

    Piracy has become a very big problem for all of us 3rd party companies. We
    are all trying to find a method that protects the years of work we have
    invested in our products yet remains workable for you at the same time.
    Companies are loosing to much money to ignore it any longer. Current
    protection systems do not work or at the least only delay the problem by a
    short period of time.

    Based on your description, if the tool they require is not sending or
    polling your personal information, then what is it that alarms you so in
    regard to the tool? From what I understand, the tool is simply reading your
    system configuration and with that information generating a key that allows
    their products to work on your machine. Does the tool require internet
    access or is it sending any of this information out? Or is it working on
    the machine itself and without it the design tools just do not function?
    There is a big difference between the two approaches. As a developer
    myself, I would not personally have a problem with a tool that was required
    to be installed for use as long as it did NOT require any information be
    sent out of the system which I did not want nor approve of.

    What type of registration system would you like to see in a product? What
    kind of solution would you have that could work for both you and the
    company? Again, we are very interested in this because we are also
    developing a new system and the last thing we want to do is release
    something that makes our customers angry at us - yet at the same time we
    also want to protect our property.

    I look forward to hearing your response on this.. Thanks for your time!
    --
    Sincerely,

    Todd B - Agendum Software
    http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax

    NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    task management and more! Visit our web site today for more information
    and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!


    "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    news:3a772c22$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > I was infuriated to find out recently that Infragistics now demands that

    you
    > install a tool they call "DPAC" (Digital Product Activation Certificate)
    > about which they say:
    >
    > "The activation process identifies your machine by a unique one-way hash
    > code generated from the machine's hardware. This hash code can be used to
    > identify the machine, but it reveals no private information about the

    machine
    > or its contents. In fact, because the hash code is one-way, it cannot be
    > deciphered, nor can it be used to discern any information about your

    machine."
    > source:http://www.infragistics.com/support/....asp?find=dpac
    >
    > Do you remember the excitement Intel generated with unique ID's for

    Pentium
    > III's? I don't care WHAT it's collecting. They have no business requiring
    > me to allow them ANY information about my system in order to use a

    component.
    >
    > It does nothing but add complications for the developer. Just read the

    FAQ's
    > page to find out how much more it may complicate your development job.
    >
    > Please join with me in getting Infragistics management to discontinue this
    > policy of "Big Brother" interference.
    >



    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    Lowell Williams Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy


    Todd -

    As I recall (check their site to get it accurately) Infragistics tool requires
    an internet connection during development. A file is created that uniquely
    identifies the machine. They call it a "DPAC." When the component is loaded,
    the DPAC checks against a server to see if you're properly registered etc.
    against the license.

    Problems occur when a) you're not connected b) you rebuild your system or
    c) decide to move development to another system. The answer to solving these
    problems (according to their FAQ page and w/out refreshing my memory of that)
    is to call technical support.

    I don't want ANYONE creating a file that identifies my machine on the internet.
    It invites Infragistics or anyone else who finds out how their system works
    (and you know that they will despite assurances) to use it to their advantage.
    Remember when others such as Intel and Microsoft have tried this?

    Exactly what do I get out of this scheme? To add to the insult, I have to
    make phone calls to tech. support and the inevitable wait, registration proof
    and so on to solve a,b, or c above.

    The server they're using isn't free, either, and I get to subsidize it as
    part of the cost of the software. Not to mention the expense of developing
    this nonsense.

    Allowing one company that does it invites others to do it, too, and suddenly
    getting your development environment running is now ten times harder than
    it used to be and you run from provider to provider trying to re-register.
    (Eventually, in that situation, someone would come along and steal your
    business by not requiring on-line registration and everlasting verification.
    Imagine those ads). (And maybe a hacker or two figures out how to do a DoS
    of your software, just for fun).

    I don't know how you do it. Companies have been trying everything over the
    years. Just what evidence do you have to back up your claim that "Piracy
    has become a big problem?" Is it bigger than in 1984? 1994? How do you know?
    I have read articles in the past that the trouble caused to legitimate users
    outweighs the potential lost sales. (Sorry, I cannot cite examples, either).
    When I have discussed this with other Marketing and Developers, they have
    indicated that it's just too much of a pain in the neck. For the software
    I'm developing, we have tossed out keys and mandatory registration altogether
    as it generated too many support calls. Ask Nico Mak why he allows WINZIP
    to be probably (my guess) the most "cracked" software in the world.

    I'd be much more likely to allow a dongle rather than put up with connecting
    to a server. But, I don't want to have 27 dongles hanging off of my COM port,
    either.

    What I can tell you is how much this Infragistics component ticked me off:
    It just simply makes me furious! I will absolutely not buy ANY SOFTWARE that
    subjects me to this *******. EVERY Developer I have talked about this so
    far agrees with me. So, think about that.

    Lowell

    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    John Butler Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    Todd

    Lowell has already covered the main points in his reply and I support those.
    My main development machine gets upgraded and nuked way too regularly. The
    thought of having to make dozens of (international) phone calls to tech
    support lines (which due to time zone differences may be asleep) EVERY time
    I change some factor that breaks the reg code, is too much to bear.

    I have read with anger the whole Office 10/Whistler registration
    debacle....whereby Microsoft is now also trying to force licensing
    limitations on us...please don't you guys start getting draconian as well.
    If every software vendor starts trying this tack, it will become unmanagable
    for the average user to upgrade/move to another PC without taking a day off
    work to do so .

    I understand your desire to protect your products...in fact as a developer
    myself, I was quite upset by the fact that a recent search I did on
    AltaVista (for a tool) threw up nothing but cracks/warez links as the first
    search results...I couldn't even find the tool provider's website!

    It strikes me that this problem presents an opportunity for someone to
    develop a new way of doing licensing that works. Yes, I know a lot has been
    tried, but there is ALWAYS another way. However, if it involves having my
    personal details in someone's database...no way. I am always testing new
    programs. Even though I religiously uncheck all "Please add me to your
    boring mail list" messages, I regularly receive xyz-company related spam,
    despite specifically not requesting it.

    On a different tack, why actually bother with copy protection? Can you
    really prove that you are losing so much revenue due to pirating? Surely 90%
    of the warez-trawlers who crack and install your product:
    a) were never going to buy it anyway
    b) are likely to play around with it, then abandon it as soon as something
    else interesting comes along.
    c) *might* be regular joes who are sick of irritating "This is an unlicensed
    copy" messages and who want to continue evaluating a product beyond some
    way-too-short 30 day period.

    I have to admit sympathy with c) above. Like anyone, 30 days is often
    nowhere near enough time to evaluate something when you're busy/travelling
    frequently etc. Since some tools (especially "enterprise" versions) are
    hardly cheap....people want to be **** sure the tool works for them before
    chunking out money for it.

    Don't flame me for the last argument above....was just asking/postulating
    whether copy protection is necessary/ever going to really work without
    irritating your customers beyond reason.

    regards
    John Butler




    "Todd B - Agendum Software" <ToddB@NOSPAMAgendumSoftware.com> wrote in
    message news:3a78dc57@news.devx.com...
    > Lowell,
    >
    > As a 3rd party developer we understand the reasoning behind what
    > Sheridan/Infragistics is trying to do however we also understand your
    > concerns on this as well . Here at Agendum, we are also working on a new
    > registration system so we would love to hear more of what you have to say
    > about this subject. With that in mind, we would like to know your

    thoughts
    > on this because we obviously do not want to produce something that would

    not
    > be workable or acceptable to developers and users alike.
    >
    > Piracy has become a very big problem for all of us 3rd party companies.

    We
    > are all trying to find a method that protects the years of work we have
    > invested in our products yet remains workable for you at the same time.
    > Companies are loosing to much money to ignore it any longer. Current
    > protection systems do not work or at the least only delay the problem by a
    > short period of time.
    >
    > Based on your description, if the tool they require is not sending or
    > polling your personal information, then what is it that alarms you so in
    > regard to the tool? From what I understand, the tool is simply reading

    your
    > system configuration and with that information generating a key that

    allows
    > their products to work on your machine. Does the tool require internet
    > access or is it sending any of this information out? Or is it working on
    > the machine itself and without it the design tools just do not function?
    > There is a big difference between the two approaches. As a developer
    > myself, I would not personally have a problem with a tool that was

    required
    > to be installed for use as long as it did NOT require any information be
    > sent out of the system which I did not want nor approve of.
    >
    > What type of registration system would you like to see in a product?

    What
    > kind of solution would you have that could work for both you and the
    > company? Again, we are very interested in this because we are also
    > developing a new system and the last thing we want to do is release
    > something that makes our customers angry at us - yet at the same time we
    > also want to protect our property.
    >
    > I look forward to hearing your response on this.. Thanks for your time!
    > --
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > Todd B - Agendum Software
    > http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    > (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax
    >
    > NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    > display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    > task management and more! Visit our web site today for more information
    > and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!
    >
    >
    > "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    > news:3a772c22$1@news.devx.com...
    > >
    > > I was infuriated to find out recently that Infragistics now demands that

    > you
    > > install a tool they call "DPAC" (Digital Product Activation Certificate)
    > > about which they say:
    > >
    > > "The activation process identifies your machine by a unique one-way hash
    > > code generated from the machine's hardware. This hash code can be used

    to
    > > identify the machine, but it reveals no private information about the

    > machine
    > > or its contents. In fact, because the hash code is one-way, it cannot be
    > > deciphered, nor can it be used to discern any information about your

    > machine."
    > > source:http://www.infragistics.com/support/....asp?find=dpac
    > >
    > > Do you remember the excitement Intel generated with unique ID's for

    > Pentium
    > > III's? I don't care WHAT it's collecting. They have no business

    requiring
    > > me to allow them ANY information about my system in order to use a

    > component.
    > >
    > > It does nothing but add complications for the developer. Just read the

    > FAQ's
    > > page to find out how much more it may complicate your development job.
    > >
    > > Please join with me in getting Infragistics management to discontinue

    this
    > > policy of "Big Brother" interference.
    > >

    >
    >



    Share on Google+

  5. #5
    Larry Rebich Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    I like Apex's [ComponentOne's] approach to licensing. There are 'machine'
    restrictions if the software is downloaded and subsequently registered. But
    if you purchase the product and ask for a CD with documentation then it is
    installed without 'machine' restrictions. I gladly pay the extra $10 or so
    to have a copy on CD that does not restrict my development machine.

    The policy we used [major software house - mid 1970s] was to license the
    software by machine and used the IBM mainframe's serial number to control
    unauthorized use. If the software was moved to another machine the user had
    30 days to get the new serial number to us at which point we gave them a new
    registration code. I think it was a mistake for Intel to remove the serial
    number support from chips.

    I'd support machine restrictions if the vendor would allow me to register 4
    machines - my current development environment - and if the vendor's software
    would run on any machine for 30 days or so.

    Cheers,
    Larry Rebich

    More tips link to:
    http://www.buygold.net/tips.html

    Please:
    No personal e-mail questions :-)


    Share on Google+

  6. #6
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    On 31 Jan 2001 22:17:52 -0800, "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote:

    Not to argue with your points of inconvenience (which I would find annoying as well)...but with
    regards to identifying your machine or preferences do you disable the creation and use of cookies in
    your browser?


    Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
    Share on Google+

  7. #7
    Lowell Williams Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy


    I use IE 5 and only allow cookies from "Trusted" sites


    Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
    >On 31 Jan 2001 22:17:52 -0800, "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net>

    wrote:
    >
    >Not to argue with your points of inconvenience (which I would find annoying

    as well)...but
    >with
    >regards to identifying your machine or preferences do you disable the creation

    and use
    >of cookies in
    >your browser?
    >
    >
    >Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    >Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)


    Share on Google+

  8. #8
    Lowell Williams Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy


    >On a different tack, why actually bother with copy protection? Can you
    >really prove that you are losing so much revenue due to pirating? Surely

    90%
    >of the warez-trawlers who crack and install your product:
    >a) were never going to buy it anyway
    >b) are likely to play around with it, then abandon it as soon as something
    >else interesting comes along.
    >c) *might* be regular joes who are sick of irritating "This is an unlicensed
    >copy" messages and who want to continue evaluating a product beyond some
    >way-too-short 30 day period.
    >


    I think John makes an excellent point here. There are plenty of users that
    would just not otherwise bother. How do you "prove" you lost revenue?
    I also agree I change and rebuild my system three or four times a year, so
    this registration system costs me the time to recofigure.

    You only want to implement this because you can. Let's have a chip embeded
    in everybody's head so companies can uniquely identify you. The wrist-sized
    Palm VII. Then you can license the developer, not the machine. The chip is
    connected to the Internet via wireless connection. Now, we can route your
    phone calls, get email, make purchases almost anything you want anywhere
    you go! That way no one gets ripped off and you make every nickle you're
    entitled to. What's so bad about that? Your fingerprints already identify
    you. You already have a Social Security number. So, we keep some little tiny
    record on you that's perfectly safe. Trust us. I'll tell you what, how would
    you like the policy to be that if I have a problem I can call you directly
    any time and any where and you're obligated to help me. Now maybe you have
    an inkling of how I feel about this. Whenever one man's rights are abused,
    we are all violated.

    How much further from this do we have to go to get there?

    Share on Google+

  9. #9
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    On 1 Feb 2001 10:18:24 -0800, "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote:


    I use IE 5 and only allow cookies from "Trusted" sites


    One of which apparently is not Infragistics. ;-)


    Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
    Share on Google+

  10. #10
    Raymond Cassick Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    I might support a server process that can be exposed to allow software
    houses to 'un-lock' development tools. Have a special process running on a
    server that is exposed to the internet and when you install a piece of
    software (dev tool) allow it to use this gateway to notify the creator that
    the software is being installed again.

    I guess this sounds kind of a like the windows license manager, but with
    some remote extensions. No gateway connection THAT CAN BE MONITORED, no
    development with the tool.

    Comments? Flames?

    "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    news:3a772c22$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > I was infuriated to find out recently that Infragistics now demands that

    you
    > install a tool they call "DPAC" (Digital Product Activation Certificate)
    > about which they say:
    >
    > "The activation process identifies your machine by a unique one-way hash
    > code generated from the machine's hardware. This hash code can be used to
    > identify the machine, but it reveals no private information about the

    machine
    > or its contents. In fact, because the hash code is one-way, it cannot be
    > deciphered, nor can it be used to discern any information about your

    machine."
    > source:http://www.infragistics.com/support/....asp?find=dpac
    >
    > Do you remember the excitement Intel generated with unique ID's for

    Pentium
    > III's? I don't care WHAT it's collecting. They have no business requiring
    > me to allow them ANY information about my system in order to use a

    component.
    >
    > It does nothing but add complications for the developer. Just read the

    FAQ's
    > page to find out how much more it may complicate your development job.
    >
    > Please join with me in getting Infragistics management to discontinue this
    > policy of "Big Brother" interference.
    >



    Share on Google+

  11. #11
    Todd B - Agendum Software Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    Lowell,

    > As I recall (check their site to get it accurately) Infragistics tool

    requires
    > an internet connection during development. A file is created that uniquely
    > identifies the machine. They call it a "DPAC." When the component is

    loaded,
    > the DPAC checks against a server to see if you're properly registered etc.
    > against the license.


    I have not looked at it myself so I have to go on your reports. Is the
    internet functionality mandatory or user controlled? Do they 'require' you
    to connect and send data?

    > Problems occur when a) you're not connected b) you rebuild your system or
    > c) decide to move development to another system. The answer to solving

    these
    > problems (according to their FAQ page and w/out refreshing my memory of

    that)
    > is to call technical support.


    mmm. Personally I am not keen on that myself... That really sounds weird
    that they would require actual contact as you explained it. I would think
    that would cause more work for them and that is not something I would want
    to do. Perhaps with feedback they may change it? Have you contacted them
    with your concerns?

    > I don't want ANYONE creating a file that identifies my machine on the

    internet.
    > It invites Infragistics or anyone else who finds out how their system

    works
    > (and you know that they will despite assurances) to use it to their

    advantage.
    > Remember when others such as Intel and Microsoft have tried this?


    I agree that I do not want any information going out that I did not have
    control over. IF I trust the company and IF I have control over the data, I
    am more inclined to allow certain information to be let out but if I am not
    in the loop with my own information or if I am 'required' to hand it over
    then I have a problem with it.

    > Exactly what do I get out of this scheme? To add to the insult, I have to
    > make phone calls to tech. support and the inevitable wait, registration

    proof
    > and so on to solve a,b, or c above.


    Seems to be more work than it is worth...

    > The server they're using isn't free, either, and I get to subsidize it as
    > part of the cost of the software. Not to mention the expense of developing
    > this nonsense.


    Server is not free?? You mean you have to PAY to have access to the server
    to get re-registered or to get support?? I cannot imagine any company doing
    something like that...

    > Allowing one company that does it invites others to do it, too, and

    suddenly
    > getting your development environment running is now ten times harder than
    > it used to be and you run from provider to provider trying to re-register.
    > (Eventually, in that situation, someone would come along and steal your
    > business by not requiring on-line registration and everlasting

    verification.
    > Imagine those ads). (And maybe a hacker or two figures out how to do a DoS
    > of your software, just for fun).


    I agree with you. We screwed up ourselves with one of our products in such
    a way that people had to call us to re-register... Ours was a mistake
    however and was not done intentionally. I wonder if this may be the case
    with what you are dealing with?!? In our case, even for the time we had the
    goof out there, it caused more work for us than you could imagine. I just
    could not see creating a system that required us to have contact with a
    customer for registration everytime they needed to install or re-install a
    product. Even though our case was a screw up on our end, it was enough to
    teach us to never even think about doing it for real... not only because of
    the additional work load on us but because of the hassle it would cause our
    customers..

    > I don't know how you do it. Companies have been trying everything over

    the
    > years. Just what evidence do you have to back up your claim that "Piracy
    > has become a big problem?" Is it bigger than in 1984? 1994? How do you

    know?
    > I have read articles in the past that the trouble caused to legitimate

    users
    > outweighs the potential lost sales. (Sorry, I cannot cite examples,

    either).
    > When I have discussed this with other Marketing and Developers, they have
    > indicated that it's just too much of a pain in the neck. For the software
    > I'm developing, we have tossed out keys and mandatory registration

    altogether
    > as it generated too many support calls. Ask Nico Mak why he allows WINZIP
    > to be probably (my guess) the most "cracked" software in the world.


    Right now we have only one new product shipping with our new system.
    Eventually all our products will use the new system. Eventually, our new
    registration setup will allow users to have two options to control their
    registrations. The most convenient system will make use of internet access
    by setting up a secure account via our secure server where a customer will
    actually have their own account and they will control their own information
    etc... This system will be voluntary only but the way it is designed, it
    will allow for immediate and full control of registrations, installations,
    manual and automated upgrades of all our products and more totally
    controlled by the customer. Keeping in mind that some customers will not
    want to use this system, we will have a manual control system that will work
    much the same way however it will be in the form of a 'tool' (for lack of a
    better name right now) that the user will be given when they purchase and
    this tool will be used to install and un-install products without the need
    for internet access or contact with us in any way.

    In terms of your question about piracy and backing up the claim.. You bet
    we can back it up. I can show you phone logs, F.B.I. investigation reports
    and more. For this discussion I will use July 2000 - last year. That
    month we had 237 support telephone calls come in to our offices. Out of the
    237 calls, 46 of them were for pre-purchase questions about the products
    (does it do this, how well does it work with ... etc). We had 19 support
    calls from users that purchased who needed assistance with using the product
    (coding syntax, property settings etc). We had 7 bug reports from
    registered users covering all of our products we have on the market (3 were
    legit bugs, 2 were typo's found in products and 2 were problems in other
    companies products that surfaced when used with our product(s)...). The
    remainder, 165 support phone calls and/or email support requests, came from
    users that WERE NOT registered users and who were using pirated versions.

    Amazingly enough, a good half of those users admitted they had been given
    copies by friends but thought the product came that way and stated that they
    were not aware it was a commercial product even thought the information
    dialog box states in BIG letters, the name of the person the product was
    registered to. The other half hung up the phone or never replied back to
    any other emails upon us confronting them after looking up the codes they
    gave us when we requested their registration ID number for support.

    I could give you a more detailed break down by product but I really do not
    think that is necessary. We DO have an active F.B.I investigation open now
    because it has become very apparent that a problem exists and this problem
    is not small.

    In fact this really came to light for us when we found a major corporation
    had almost 200 copies of one of our products installed and had only
    purchased one developer license. To add insult to injury, the product they
    were using it in was a commercial, for sale, off the shelf package!! And
    THAT is why we and other companies are now making drastic changes in our
    registration systems. We changed our system the first time last year right
    after we learned how big the problem really was.

    We are now in process of finishing our new system that will not only
    dramatically change the way we protect our products but will also make it
    much more user interactive and controllable as well. Although we recognize
    we need to protect our hard work, we also realize that our customers need to
    continue to have the flexibility to control their installations and
    registrations without major interaction or hassle with us or the product.
    We feel that we have found a solution to that and in addition, we have also
    come up with a way that gives the user a choice in taking advantage of the
    internet if they so desire or not.

    We believe we can protect our work yet give you what you need with minimal
    hassle. Our customers are the best in the world as far as we are
    concerned. Many of them are actually working with us to design and test out
    our new system and it is our customers who are offering us the feedback on
    what works and what does not work... and with that kind of feedback, we
    think we will come up with a system that can satisfy our needs as well as
    yours as a user.

    We will not be able to make everyone happy. That is impossible. But if we
    can make 98% of our customers happy and yet protect our years of work, I
    think we will have a usable solution. I would love to hear your comments
    on what you think in regard this part of the post...

    > I'd be much more likely to allow a dongle rather than put up with

    connecting
    > to a server. But, I don't want to have 27 dongles hanging off of my COM

    port,
    > either.


    Dongles are not the way to go.. Too easy to loose, not enough serial ports
    and in fact many new machines no longer even have serial ports. No, we
    will stick with a software solution.

    > What I can tell you is how much this Infragistics component ticked me off:
    > It just simply makes me furious! I will absolutely not buy ANY SOFTWARE

    that
    > subjects me to this *******. EVERY Developer I have talked about this so
    > far agrees with me. So, think about that.


    If their system is as limiting as you described, it then I would have to
    agree with you. I am curious to know whether you have personally discussed
    this with them and whether your concerns are or will be addressed.

    Again, we want our customers to let us know when we do screw up and what
    does work and what does not work. After all we are creating products for
    you and the VB market.. It is your feedback and your comments that control
    the design of what we do. I am glad we are not in the shoes of the company
    you are talking about and our goal is to do everything in our power to never
    be in that position! ;-)

    Your thoughts?
    --
    Sincerely,

    Todd B - CEO - Agendum Software
    http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    (608) 837-6736 (419) 821-9599


    "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    news:3a78ff90$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Todd -
    >
    > As I recall (check their site to get it accurately) Infragistics tool

    requires
    > an internet connection during development. A file is created that uniquely
    > identifies the machine. They call it a "DPAC." When the component is

    loaded,
    > the DPAC checks against a server to see if you're properly registered etc.
    > against the license.
    >
    > Problems occur when a) you're not connected b) you rebuild your system or
    > c) decide to move development to another system. The answer to solving

    these
    > problems (according to their FAQ page and w/out refreshing my memory of

    that)
    > is to call technical support.
    >
    > I don't want ANYONE creating a file that identifies my machine on the

    internet.
    > It invites Infragistics or anyone else who finds out how their system

    works
    > (and you know that they will despite assurances) to use it to their

    advantage.
    > Remember when others such as Intel and Microsoft have tried this?
    >
    > Exactly what do I get out of this scheme? To add to the insult, I have to
    > make phone calls to tech. support and the inevitable wait, registration

    proof
    > and so on to solve a,b, or c above.
    >
    > The server they're using isn't free, either, and I get to subsidize it as
    > part of the cost of the software. Not to mention the expense of developing
    > this nonsense.
    >
    > Allowing one company that does it invites others to do it, too, and

    suddenly
    > getting your development environment running is now ten times harder than
    > it used to be and you run from provider to provider trying to re-register.
    > (Eventually, in that situation, someone would come along and steal your
    > business by not requiring on-line registration and everlasting

    verification.
    > Imagine those ads). (And maybe a hacker or two figures out how to do a DoS
    > of your software, just for fun).
    >
    > I don't know how you do it. Companies have been trying everything over

    the
    > years. Just what evidence do you have to back up your claim that "Piracy
    > has become a big problem?" Is it bigger than in 1984? 1994? How do you

    know?
    > I have read articles in the past that the trouble caused to legitimate

    users
    > outweighs the potential lost sales. (Sorry, I cannot cite examples,

    either).
    > When I have discussed this with other Marketing and Developers, they have
    > indicated that it's just too much of a pain in the neck. For the software
    > I'm developing, we have tossed out keys and mandatory registration

    altogether
    > as it generated too many support calls. Ask Nico Mak why he allows WINZIP
    > to be probably (my guess) the most "cracked" software in the world.
    >
    > I'd be much more likely to allow a dongle rather than put up with

    connecting
    > to a server. But, I don't want to have 27 dongles hanging off of my COM

    port,
    > either.
    >
    > What I can tell you is how much this Infragistics component ticked me off:
    > It just simply makes me furious! I will absolutely not buy ANY SOFTWARE

    that
    > subjects me to this *******. EVERY Developer I have talked about this so
    > far agrees with me. So, think about that.
    >
    > Lowell
    >



    Share on Google+

  12. #12
    Todd B - Agendum Software Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    John,

    > Lowell has already covered the main points in his reply and I support

    those.
    > My main development machine gets upgraded and nuked way too regularly. The
    > thought of having to make dozens of (international) phone calls to tech
    > support lines (which due to time zone differences may be asleep) EVERY

    time
    > I change some factor that breaks the reg code, is too much to bear.


    I agree with you.. I am NOT part of that other company rather I am in the
    discussion to learn and get ideas from you all so that as we work on our new
    system, we understand what it is that you want and/or do not want. As a
    programmer myself, on a personal level I also do not want nor would I like
    having a system with that type of restrictive registration system. Heck, we
    learned this with one of our own products when we screwed up and released a
    product that inadvertently did the same thing. It only took a few days to
    realize we had messed something up especially since that was not at all our
    intention. But it was a good lesson because we got not only a first hand
    look at what a system like that would do for our work load, but we were able
    to see how it affected the few users that were updated with it as well.
    We worked with them to revamp and resolve it but after seeing how much of a
    pain it was first hand, we knew right then and there that it was one type
    of system we would never design and release on purpose. Not only was it
    apparent that it was a pain for our users, but our workload tripled because
    it required us to do everything manually. Our intended results were there
    except instead of working the way it was supposed to, it completely turned
    itself off once the product had been installed! That was a big oops on
    our part! ;-) In our case, the problem was caused by an entire section of
    code that was still commented out which we had neglected to un-comment
    before compiling it. The system has an imbedded key and when compiling
    part of the product, a section of code is commented out, then uncommented
    during the next compile.. Human error on my part.

    Thus in this discussion, I am NOT disagreeing with all of you, rather I am
    saying I know why they created a new system. I understand what they created
    is NOT acceptable. My purpose here is to learn from all of you, why it is
    not acceptable and where or what we can do with our system that would make
    it acceptable. The system we are designing now has one big
    requirement.... insure what we do release works for both sides and is
    acceptable to both sides in usability, functionality and is the least
    intrusive as possible to you.

    > I have read with anger the whole Office 10/Whistler registration
    > debacle....whereby Microsoft is now also trying to force licensing
    > limitations on us...please don't you guys start getting draconian as well.
    > If every software vendor starts trying this tack, it will become

    unmanagable
    > for the average user to upgrade/move to another PC without taking a day

    off
    > work to do so .


    I agree with you on this one. I too have been a bit concerned about what I
    have read on this.. Although someone did tell me that it is actually the
    same setup as what is in Windows 2000 but instead of being off by default,
    under Whistler it is on by default.

    > I understand your desire to protect your products...in fact as a developer
    > myself, I was quite upset by the fact that a recent search I did on
    > AltaVista (for a tool) threw up nothing but cracks/warez links as the

    first
    > search results...I couldn't even find the tool provider's website!


    Yes that is frustrating big time. Anyone that realizes this has to know
    why developers are trying to fight back. It really irritates me when
    someone tries the throw the argument in there about 'how do you really know
    how much you lost' ..... etc etc.. No software company is able to
    determine exact losses however in our case, we have been able to determine a
    loss amount based on support requests and upgrade requests received by phone
    and email. Many people seem to forget that money is spent paying
    employees to answer the phone and take the time to assist and in our case,
    by tracking that information, we have been able to see losses based on a
    factual thing. Personally, I would bet the losses are much more than what
    we are able to show based on that information but there is just no way to
    figure out that information.

    > It strikes me that this problem presents an opportunity for someone to
    > develop a new way of doing licensing that works. Yes, I know a lot has

    been
    > tried, but there is ALWAYS another way. However, if it involves having my
    > personal details in someone's database...no way. I am always testing new
    > programs. Even though I religiously uncheck all "Please add me to your
    > boring mail list" messages, I regularly receive xyz-company related spam,
    > despite specifically not requesting it.


    Same here. In fact it is this very type of personal experience that helped
    us make the decision we made. I do not know if you have tried or downloaded
    any of our products, but if so then you know that we require NO registration
    at all for download of any of our products, freeware or commercial. We do
    not ask for email, address, phone... nothing. We have NO requirements at
    all to download or try any of our products and none of our installers ask
    for any information either. We want people to realize that we are
    truthful about what we say. To be honest, we see no reason at all to
    require any of that registration stuff taking place... What is the purpose?
    Like most other companies, we do have a update newsletter that goes out once
    in a while but the only way to get that newsletter is by sending us an email
    telling us to add you to the list. There are no check boxes, no places
    where you have to opt out, nothing... Anyone who visits our site or
    downloads a product, simply sees product information and a download link.

    > On a different tack, why actually bother with copy protection? Can you
    > really prove that you are losing so much revenue due to pirating? Surely

    90%
    > of the warez-trawlers who crack and install your product:
    > a) were never going to buy it anyway
    > b) are likely to play around with it, then abandon it as soon as something
    > else interesting comes along.
    > c) *might* be regular joes who are sick of irritating "This is an

    unlicensed
    > copy" messages and who want to continue evaluating a product beyond some
    > way-too-short 30 day period.


    I touched on this a bit before but you asked some good questions. Here is
    why it is an issue:

    > a) were never going to buy it anyway


    True that warez people and pirates are not going to buy it however you would
    not believe how many companies buy one copy then put it on every machine.
    Another scenario also happens where one developer buys him/her self a copy,
    takes it to work and lets his peers install it as well... and the company is
    not even aware of it. We have had a few of these situations pop up. In
    one case, the company had purchased 3 copies but had well over 200
    installed.

    > b) are likely to play around with it, then abandon it as soon as

    something
    > else interesting comes along.


    Again true. The biggest problem from this perspective is the 'temptation'
    for a legit user to get the product and either forget they had a pirated
    version OR as we have seen in quite a few cases, they downloaded a cracked
    version from a legit site not aware that it was in fact a pirate copy. We
    have had quite a few honest developers contact us and let us know they had
    been using our product(s) for a while never realizing it was in fact a
    commercial product and through some method became aware that it indeed was
    and what they had was a pirated copy. The good thing about this however is
    that these honest folk purchased it immediately upon realizing this.

    > c) *might* be regular joes who are sick of irritating "This is an

    unlicensed
    > copy" messages and who want to continue evaluating a product beyond some
    > way-too-short 30 day period.


    On this one, I have to disagree with you. First, I personally cannot see a
    scenario where someone would not have an idea on whether they liked or
    needed a product in 30 days time. This includes determining even if the
    product does what it is supposed to. But for sake of argument, let's say
    that some do need more than 30 days. Is it too much to ask for them to
    simply send an email or pick up the phone and simply ask for permission to
    continue an eval for a bit longer? Perhaps if they took this approach,
    the developer might even be inclined to give them a special code or a date
    locked version that turned on all the features or got rid of the pop-ups so
    they could do a full eval. If people were a bit more up front with 3rd
    party companies, I would be the 3rd party developers would be more than
    happy to accommodate the user. I know we would if at all possible.

    > I have to admit sympathy with c) above. Like anyone, 30 days is often
    > nowhere near enough time to evaluate something when you're busy/travelling
    > frequently etc. Since some tools (especially "enterprise" versions) are
    > hardly cheap....people want to be **** sure the tool works for them before
    > chunking out money for it.


    Ok I guess I do have to agree with you in the sense that if you are talking
    about a very involved product, then yes 30 days may be too limiting. My
    statements however were from the perspective of evaluating an ActiveX
    control. ;-)

    > Don't flame me for the last argument above....was just asking/postulating
    > whether copy protection is necessary/ever going to really work without
    > irritating your customers beyond reason.


    Nah, no flames. I love a good debate and discussion. ;-) Part of the
    reason I am so active in the newsgroups is to learn what it is that users
    and customers want and expect from us 3rd party developers. The only way
    we can create the products you all need and want and in the manner you want
    them, is by us being involved in discussions just like this.

    --
    Sincerely,

    Todd B - Agendum Software
    http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax

    NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    task management and more! Visit our web site today for more information
    and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!


    "John Butler" <jrbutler@btclick.com> wrote in message
    news:3a791f36@news.devx.com...
    > Todd
    >
    > Lowell has already covered the main points in his reply and I support

    those.
    > My main development machine gets upgraded and nuked way too regularly. The
    > thought of having to make dozens of (international) phone calls to tech
    > support lines (which due to time zone differences may be asleep) EVERY

    time
    > I change some factor that breaks the reg code, is too much to bear.
    >
    > I have read with anger the whole Office 10/Whistler registration
    > debacle....whereby Microsoft is now also trying to force licensing
    > limitations on us...please don't you guys start getting draconian as well.
    > If every software vendor starts trying this tack, it will become

    unmanagable
    > for the average user to upgrade/move to another PC without taking a day

    off
    > work to do so .
    >
    > I understand your desire to protect your products...in fact as a developer
    > myself, I was quite upset by the fact that a recent search I did on
    > AltaVista (for a tool) threw up nothing but cracks/warez links as the

    first
    > search results...I couldn't even find the tool provider's website!
    >
    > It strikes me that this problem presents an opportunity for someone to
    > develop a new way of doing licensing that works. Yes, I know a lot has

    been
    > tried, but there is ALWAYS another way. However, if it involves having my
    > personal details in someone's database...no way. I am always testing new
    > programs. Even though I religiously uncheck all "Please add me to your
    > boring mail list" messages, I regularly receive xyz-company related spam,
    > despite specifically not requesting it.
    >
    > On a different tack, why actually bother with copy protection? Can you
    > really prove that you are losing so much revenue due to pirating? Surely

    90%
    > of the warez-trawlers who crack and install your product:
    > a) were never going to buy it anyway
    > b) are likely to play around with it, then abandon it as soon as something
    > else interesting comes along.
    > c) *might* be regular joes who are sick of irritating "This is an

    unlicensed
    > copy" messages and who want to continue evaluating a product beyond some
    > way-too-short 30 day period.
    >
    > I have to admit sympathy with c) above. Like anyone, 30 days is often
    > nowhere near enough time to evaluate something when you're busy/travelling
    > frequently etc. Since some tools (especially "enterprise" versions) are
    > hardly cheap....people want to be **** sure the tool works for them before
    > chunking out money for it.
    >
    > Don't flame me for the last argument above....was just asking/postulating
    > whether copy protection is necessary/ever going to really work without
    > irritating your customers beyond reason.
    >
    > regards
    > John Butler
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Todd B - Agendum Software" <ToddB@NOSPAMAgendumSoftware.com> wrote in
    > message news:3a78dc57@news.devx.com...
    > > Lowell,
    > >
    > > As a 3rd party developer we understand the reasoning behind what
    > > Sheridan/Infragistics is trying to do however we also understand your
    > > concerns on this as well . Here at Agendum, we are also working on a

    new
    > > registration system so we would love to hear more of what you have to

    say
    > > about this subject. With that in mind, we would like to know your

    > thoughts
    > > on this because we obviously do not want to produce something that would

    > not
    > > be workable or acceptable to developers and users alike.
    > >
    > > Piracy has become a very big problem for all of us 3rd party companies.

    > We
    > > are all trying to find a method that protects the years of work we have
    > > invested in our products yet remains workable for you at the same time.
    > > Companies are loosing to much money to ignore it any longer. Current
    > > protection systems do not work or at the least only delay the problem by

    a
    > > short period of time.
    > >
    > > Based on your description, if the tool they require is not sending or
    > > polling your personal information, then what is it that alarms you so in
    > > regard to the tool? From what I understand, the tool is simply reading

    > your
    > > system configuration and with that information generating a key that

    > allows
    > > their products to work on your machine. Does the tool require internet
    > > access or is it sending any of this information out? Or is it working

    on
    > > the machine itself and without it the design tools just do not function?
    > > There is a big difference between the two approaches. As a developer
    > > myself, I would not personally have a problem with a tool that was

    > required
    > > to be installed for use as long as it did NOT require any information be
    > > sent out of the system which I did not want nor approve of.
    > >
    > > What type of registration system would you like to see in a product?

    > What
    > > kind of solution would you have that could work for both you and the
    > > company? Again, we are very interested in this because we are also
    > > developing a new system and the last thing we want to do is release
    > > something that makes our customers angry at us - yet at the same time we
    > > also want to protect our property.
    > >
    > > I look forward to hearing your response on this.. Thanks for your time!
    > > --
    > > Sincerely,
    > >
    > > Todd B - Agendum Software
    > > http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    > > (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax
    > >
    > > NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    > > display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    > > task management and more! Visit our web site today for more

    information
    > > and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!
    > >
    > >
    > > "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    > > news:3a772c22$1@news.devx.com...
    > > >
    > > > I was infuriated to find out recently that Infragistics now demands

    that
    > > you
    > > > install a tool they call "DPAC" (Digital Product Activation

    Certificate)
    > > > about which they say:
    > > >
    > > > "The activation process identifies your machine by a unique one-way

    hash
    > > > code generated from the machine's hardware. This hash code can be used

    > to
    > > > identify the machine, but it reveals no private information about the

    > > machine
    > > > or its contents. In fact, because the hash code is one-way, it cannot

    be
    > > > deciphered, nor can it be used to discern any information about your

    > > machine."
    > > > source:http://www.infragistics.com/support/....asp?find=dpac
    > > >
    > > > Do you remember the excitement Intel generated with unique ID's for

    > > Pentium
    > > > III's? I don't care WHAT it's collecting. They have no business

    > requiring
    > > > me to allow them ANY information about my system in order to use a

    > > component.
    > > >
    > > > It does nothing but add complications for the developer. Just read the

    > > FAQ's
    > > > page to find out how much more it may complicate your development job.
    > > >
    > > > Please join with me in getting Infragistics management to discontinue

    > this
    > > > policy of "Big Brother" interference.
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >



    Share on Google+

  13. #13
    Todd B - Agendum Software Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    Lowell,

    > I think John makes an excellent point here. There are plenty of users

    that
    > would just not otherwise bother. How do you "prove" you lost revenue?
    > I also agree I change and rebuild my system three or four times a year, so
    > this registration system costs me the time to recofigure.


    Aye I have to agree. Both you and John have had good, valid points to your
    arguments. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is no way to come up
    with an exact number or amount of loss. Unless you have some type of
    report back mechanism in your software, there is just not way to know how
    many copies truly exist out there. BUT we can and have been tracking the
    information that we can track and this includes support telephone calls and
    emails as well as upgrade/update requests. As I mentioned in that previous
    post, the numbers show a true and existing problem.. And if we just use
    those numbers without anything additional, that is still a major loss in
    sales when you add everything up. Who knows what the real numbers are.
    We do not look at the loss in terms of package or product price, rather we
    look at the loss in terms of the time and effort spent answering the phone,
    tracking registration information and people hours doing all of this. THAT
    is the loss that can be tracked.

    > You only want to implement this because you can. Let's have a chip embeded
    > in everybody's head so companies can uniquely identify you. The

    wrist-sized
    > Palm VII. Then you can license the developer, not the machine. The chip is
    > connected to the Internet via wireless connection. Now, we can route your
    > phone calls, get email, make purchases almost anything you want anywhere
    > you go! That way no one gets ripped off and you make every nickle you're
    > entitled to. What's so bad about that? Your fingerprints already identify
    > you. You already have a Social Security number. So, we keep some little

    tiny
    > record on you that's perfectly safe. Trust us. I'll tell you what, how

    would
    > you like the policy to be that if I have a problem I can call you directly
    > any time and any where and you're obligated to help me. Now maybe you have
    > an inkling of how I feel about this. Whenever one man's rights are abused,
    > we are all violated.


    You lost me on this one. ;-) I do want to clarify something... I am NOT
    in favor of the type of setup this thread was started on nor will we at our
    company ever purposely create such a system.. heck we do not even require
    ANY information for trial or product downloads at all for our products.
    Please keep that in mind... we do not agree at all with that type of
    registration requirement as was laid out in the post that started this
    thread.. I am in the discussion only because as a 3rd party company, I know
    why some companies are changing registration methods AND because we want to
    hear for ourselves, your feedback so that we do not make those same mistakes
    in the new system we have in development.

    > How much further from this do we have to go to get there?
    >




    --
    Sincerely,

    Todd B - Agendum Software
    http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax

    NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    task management and more! Visit our web site today for more information
    and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!


    "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    news:3a79ad46$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > >On a different tack, why actually bother with copy protection? Can you
    > >really prove that you are losing so much revenue due to pirating? Surely

    > 90%
    > >of the warez-trawlers who crack and install your product:
    > >a) were never going to buy it anyway
    > >b) are likely to play around with it, then abandon it as soon as

    something
    > >else interesting comes along.
    > >c) *might* be regular joes who are sick of irritating "This is an

    unlicensed
    > >copy" messages and who want to continue evaluating a product beyond some
    > >way-too-short 30 day period.
    > >

    >
    > I think John makes an excellent point here. There are plenty of users

    that
    > would just not otherwise bother. How do you "prove" you lost revenue?
    > I also agree I change and rebuild my system three or four times a year, so
    > this registration system costs me the time to recofigure.
    >
    > You only want to implement this because you can. Let's have a chip embeded
    > in everybody's head so companies can uniquely identify you. The

    wrist-sized
    > Palm VII. Then you can license the developer, not the machine. The chip is
    > connected to the Internet via wireless connection. Now, we can route your
    > phone calls, get email, make purchases almost anything you want anywhere
    > you go! That way no one gets ripped off and you make every nickle you're
    > entitled to. What's so bad about that? Your fingerprints already identify
    > you. You already have a Social Security number. So, we keep some little

    tiny
    > record on you that's perfectly safe. Trust us. I'll tell you what, how

    would
    > you like the policy to be that if I have a problem I can call you directly
    > any time and any where and you're obligated to help me. Now maybe you have
    > an inkling of how I feel about this. Whenever one man's rights are abused,
    > we are all violated.
    >
    > How much further from this do we have to go to get there?
    >



    Share on Google+

  14. #14
    Todd B - Agendum Software Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    Larry,

    > I'd support machine restrictions if the vendor would allow me to register

    4
    > machines - my current development environment - and if the vendor's

    software
    > would run on any machine for 30 days or so.


    This is an approach we have been discussing on our end. I would like to
    hear what others think about this as well... Would it be acceptable for a
    machine restricted system registration system as long as we offered a
    non-system restricted CD version as well?

    We have a couple other approaches going as well, but the idea you brought up
    is an interesting one...

    --
    Sincerely,

    Todd B - Agendum Software
    http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax

    NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    task management and more! Visit our web site today for more information
    and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!


    "Larry Rebich" <lrebich@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3a7975e2@news.devx.com...
    > I like Apex's [ComponentOne's] approach to licensing. There are 'machine'
    > restrictions if the software is downloaded and subsequently registered.

    But
    > if you purchase the product and ask for a CD with documentation then it is
    > installed without 'machine' restrictions. I gladly pay the extra $10 or so
    > to have a copy on CD that does not restrict my development machine.
    >
    > The policy we used [major software house - mid 1970s] was to license the
    > software by machine and used the IBM mainframe's serial number to control
    > unauthorized use. If the software was moved to another machine the user

    had
    > 30 days to get the new serial number to us at which point we gave them a

    new
    > registration code. I think it was a mistake for Intel to remove the serial
    > number support from chips.
    >
    > I'd support machine restrictions if the vendor would allow me to register

    4
    > machines - my current development environment - and if the vendor's

    software
    > would run on any machine for 30 days or so.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Larry Rebich
    >
    > More tips link to:
    > http://www.buygold.net/tips.html
    >
    > Please:
    > No personal e-mail questions :-)
    >
    >



    Share on Google+

  15. #15
    Todd B - Agendum Software Guest

    Re: Infragistics/Sheridan new registration policy

    Raymond,

    > I might support a server process that can be exposed to allow software
    > houses to 'un-lock' development tools. Have a special process running on a
    > server that is exposed to the internet and when you install a piece of
    > software (dev tool) allow it to use this gateway to notify the creator

    that
    > the software is being installed again.


    This is what we are doing for our corporate accounts. Plus they have an
    'account' so they can even administer site licenses, add more licenses and
    control the information from their end.. We have been discussing a way to
    do this for non-corporate users but so far have made no decisions because we
    have yet to figure out what people will allow or accept...

    --
    Sincerely,

    Todd B - Agendum Software
    http://www.AgendumSoftware.com | Mailto:ToddB@AgendumSoftware.com
    (608) 837-6736 Voice (419) 821-9599 Fax

    NEW release! AgMapthat - Project Browser Plus! Setup your treeview
    display with favorites, encrypt your source, enable full group project
    task management and more! Visit our web site today for more information
    and screenshots on this major VB enhancement tool!


    "Raymond Cassick" <raycass@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:3a7b7a21$1@news.devx.com...
    > I might support a server process that can be exposed to allow software
    > houses to 'un-lock' development tools. Have a special process running on a
    > server that is exposed to the internet and when you install a piece of
    > software (dev tool) allow it to use this gateway to notify the creator

    that
    > the software is being installed again.
    >
    > I guess this sounds kind of a like the windows license manager, but with
    > some remote extensions. No gateway connection THAT CAN BE MONITORED, no
    > development with the tool.
    >
    > Comments? Flames?
    >
    > "Lowell Williams" <lwilliams@videopress.net> wrote in message
    > news:3a772c22$1@news.devx.com...
    > >
    > > I was infuriated to find out recently that Infragistics now demands that

    > you
    > > install a tool they call "DPAC" (Digital Product Activation Certificate)
    > > about which they say:
    > >
    > > "The activation process identifies your machine by a unique one-way hash
    > > code generated from the machine's hardware. This hash code can be used

    to
    > > identify the machine, but it reveals no private information about the

    > machine
    > > or its contents. In fact, because the hash code is one-way, it cannot be
    > > deciphered, nor can it be used to discern any information about your

    > machine."
    > > source:http://www.infragistics.com/support/....asp?find=dpac
    > >
    > > Do you remember the excitement Intel generated with unique ID's for

    > Pentium
    > > III's? I don't care WHAT it's collecting. They have no business

    requiring
    > > me to allow them ANY information about my system in order to use a

    > component.
    > >
    > > It does nothing but add complications for the developer. Just read the

    > FAQ's
    > > page to find out how much more it may complicate your development job.
    > >
    > > Please join with me in getting Infragistics management to discontinue

    this
    > > policy of "Big Brother" interference.
    > >

    >
    >



    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center