Copy Protection?!

[Jose Jimenez]

Hi Folks I wonder if somebody can help me to copy protect a C program that
runs under ms-dos compilated with djgpp... and gcc

I have seen www.sofpro.com for references but the software has several
weakness

thanks in advance for any help

 

[Gordon Burditt]

Hi Folks I wonder if somebody can help me to copy protect a C program that

runs under ms-dos compilated with djgpp... and gcc

That's easy: DON'T SELL IT!! And perhaps you shouldn't even bother
writing it in the first place.

Copy protection is a way of making software defective so that even
a legitimate purchaser won't want to use it. (He'll also want a
refund, which you should give him if you didn't notify the purchaser
that it was copy-protected in your advertising).

Actually, having it run under MS-DOS by itself may discourage a lot
of people from trying to run it.

Gordon L. Burditt

 

[David M. Wilson]

Hi Folks I wonder if somebody can help me to copy protect a C program that
runs under ms-dos compilated with djgpp... and gcc

I'm afraid I can't help you locate a copy protection system, because
such a thing does not really exist.

What you are looking for is something to prevent piracy of your
software, and that is nearly impossible in current computing
envionments. Instead, what you can do is make your software useful
only when a relationship exists between the user and your company -
eg. by providing good support, by acting as a service bureaux, or
<insert healthy business practice here>.

Modifying the software to run in an obfuscated fashion, or to require
the attachment of a dongle to the computer only delays the inevitable
- all parts of your code will be unpacked at some stage during it's
execution, and someone with enough time and knowledge will be able to
leverage this fact to steal your program.

I don't think a perfect copy protection exists for any software
environment yet. I am interested in what advances may be made in this
field with the ongoing roll-out of 'trusted computing' initiatives.

Save your time my friend, reinvest it in improving your software and
business model so that piracy isn't a problem. Take a look around you,
there are software systems 1000 times bigger than yours (at a guess)
that don't use copy protection.

Copy protection costs time and money, requires integration, is easily
broken, and is more or less a flawed concept in general.

</opinion>


David.

 

[JewBoy]

That's easy: DON'T SELL IT!! And perhaps you shouldn't even bother
writing it in the first place.

Copy protection is a way of making software defective so that even
a legitimate purchaser won't want to use it. (He'll also want a
refund, which you should give him if you didn't notify the purchaser
that it was copy-protected in your advertising).

Actually, having it run under MS-DOS by itself may discourage a lot
of people from trying to run it.

Gordon L. Burditt

Or he could run it under linux. It's user base is so small there would be
almost no one to steal it.

 

[EventHelix.com]

Well this is off-topic. But try Armadillo.

Sandeep

 

[Kevin Goodsell]

I'm afraid I can't help you locate a copy protection system, because
such a thing does not really exist.

True. I've never heard of a copy protection scheme that succeeded in
preventing copying. I've often heard of copy protection schemes making
the application annoying, inconvenient, or impossible to use for
legitimate users.

-Kevin

 

[Nigel Feltham]

Copy protection is also a way to make sure the customer is screwed when
support for the product ends - I used to work for a software company who
produced an expensive document storage package. The early versions for DOS
were dongle protected, the later DOS and windows versions were keydisk
protected. We had to regularly replace dongles and re-activate or replace
keydisks (the disk allowed transfer of token onto hard-drive and could be
remotely reactivated if not corrupted), the company closed down 2 and a
half years ago leaving ex-customers who paid thousands per copy of the
application with no chance of replacements. How does this help anyone.

On a brighter note, our application was sold through UK and European
divisions of a large japanese multi-national (no names but think 'large
gun'), we later produced a replacement package under contract for the
japanese head division of the company (so unlike the early software they
owned the copyrights).

Move on a few years and while this newer app was being sold in a 2.x version
and develpment was progressing to a newer version the japanese company gave
the contract to their own software division in india and effectively killed
our company - leaving UK and european divisions with angry customers unable
to obtain dongles/keydisks and them to explain to customers why their head
office killed the only company who could help in persuit of cheap labour to
produce the next version of the replacement product (I wonder how many
potential buyers of the new product they lost because of this).

Isn't self-inflicted justice fun ;-)

 

[joseph philip]

Or he could run it under linux. It's user base is so small there would be
almost no one to steal it.

There are a variety of copy protection schemes available to the
dos/windows developers. Ask them.

what is "compilated"? I thought one should say "compiled".

 

Could you fine folks over in comp.lang.c please stop crossposting
your replies in this thread to alt.os.linux.slackware? It's
off-topic over here.

(I will leave it to the fine folks over in comp.lang.c to comments
on whether it's off-topic there.)

Thanks in advance for helping us to keep the slackware newsgroup
centered on slackware instead of copy protection.

 

[Joseph]

Could you fine folks over in comp.lang.c please stop crossposting
your replies in this thread to alt.os.linux.slackware? It's
off-topic over here.

(I will leave it to the fine folks over in comp.lang.c to comments
on whether it's off-topic there.)

Thanks in advance for helping us to keep the slackware newsgroup
centered on slackware instead of copy protection.

Here's a sample of some threads from alt.os.linux.slackware in the recent
past:

[#Harold Stev] 180 Re: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and gu

[Peter Christ] 4 OT(?) Slack,KDE and DVD-RAM

[Lew Pitcher ] 30 Re: OT: (Gnu)PGP, Usenet and the RFCs (long

[The Clap ] 29 Need an editor for large text files

[Victor ] 2 newsgroup

[Randy Myers ] Re: pgp trash negotiations

[Alfons M ] 10 Spirits and politics behind distros

[ModQuote_FAQ] 3 [OT] FAQ Mod Quotes -- (updated: Setting Orang

[Charles Shan] Re: [OT] what's the best Google replacement?

[Jim ] Re: [OT] Windows sells linux now?


Me thinks they want comp.lang.c to do their work for them.....

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Or he could run it under linux. It's user base is so small there would be
almost no one to steal it.

You're a stupid troll, and I really don't appreciate your fake e-mail
address.

 

[Doug Laidlaw]

And what does that have to do with comp.os.linux.misc?

Doug.

Could you fine folks over in comp.lang.c please stop crossposting
your replies in this thread to alt.os.linux.slackware? It's
off-topic over here.

(I will leave it to the fine folks over in comp.lang.c to comments
on whether it's off-topic there.)

Thanks in advance for helping us to keep the slackware newsgroup
centered on slackware instead of copy protection.

Here's a sample of some threads from alt.os.linux.slackware in the recent
past:

[#Harold Stev] 180 Re: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and gu

[Peter Christ] 4 OT(?) Slack,KDE and DVD-RAM

[Lew Pitcher ] 30 Re: OT: (Gnu)PGP, Usenet and the RFCs (long

[The Clap ] 29 Need an editor for large text files

[Victor ] 2 newsgroup

[Randy Myers ] Re: pgp trash negotiations

[Alfons M ] 10 Spirits and politics behind distros

[ModQuote_FAQ] 3 [OT] FAQ Mod Quotes -- (updated: Setting Orang

[Charles Shan] Re: [OT] what's the best Google replacement?

[Jim ] Re: [OT] Windows sells linux now?


Me thinks they want comp.lang.c to do their work for them.....

 

[Dan Pop]

In <[email protected]> "joseph philip"

You're a stupid troll, and I really don't appreciate your fake e-mail
address.

Calm down. You make it sound like Auschwitz has some significance to
Judaism.

Dan

 

And what does that have to do with comp.os.linux.misc?

Here is the sequence:

A troll tried to start a crossposted thread between
comp.lang.c and alt.os.linux.slackware.

I asked the fine folks in comp.lang.c to please not crosspost
replies in the thread.

Another troll, or maybe the same troll, then tried to start a
crossposted thread between comp.lang.c, alt.os.linux.slackware,
and comp.os.linux.misc. I assume that both crossposts are from
the resident alt.os.linux.slackware troll who is getting no
replies to his trolling posts.

The fine folks at comp.os.linux.misc, like the fine folks at
comp.lang.c, are too polite and too savvy to let themselves be
manipulated into crossposting OT material into alt.os.linux.slackware.

(BTW, Doug Laidlaw's reply is *not* part of the problem. he set
followups to one newsgroup, which was exactly the right thing
to do.)

 

Calm down. You make it sound like Auschwitz has some significance to
Judaism.

Now the troll who crossposted to comp.lang.c and alt.os.linux.slackware,
then to comp.lang.c, alt.os.linux.slackware, and comp.os.linux.misc is
now crossposting to comp.lang.c, alt.os.linux.slackware,
comp.os.linux.advocacy and comp.os.linux.misc.

Sorry, Troll, but the participant in those newsgroups are all too
smart to continue a crossposted thread that's off topic in every
group you crossposted it to.

.:\:/:.
+--------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| The Management | /`-vvv-'\
+--------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ |jgs| | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

 

[Nigel Feltham]

Copy protection is also a way to make sure the customer is screwed when
support for the product ends - I used to work for a software company who
produced an expensive document storage package. The early versions for DOS
were dongle protected, the later DOS and windows versions were keydisk
protected. We had to regularly replace dongles and re-activate or replace
keydisks (the disk allowed transfer of token onto hard-drive and could be
remotely reactivated if not corrupted), the company closed down 2 and a
half years ago leaving ex-customers who paid thousands per copy of the
application with no chance of replacements. How does this help anyone.

On a brighter note, our application was sold through UK and European
divisions of a large japanese multi-national (no names but think 'large
gun'), we later produced a replacement package under contract for the
japanese head division of the company (so unlike the early software they
owned the copyrights).

Move on a few years and while this newer app was being sold in a 2.x version
and develpment was progressing to a newer version the japanese company gave
the contract to their own software division in india and effectively killed
our company - leaving UK and european divisions with angry customers unable
to obtain dongles/keydisks and them to explain to customers why their head
office killed the only company who could help in persuit of cheap labour to
produce the next version of the replacement product (I wonder how many
potential buyers of the new product they lost because of this).

Isn't self-inflicted justice fun ;-)