Licensing tool

[Ravi]

Please suggest me best licensing tool/utility to support for the java
product.
Any link helps me suggest the differenceies between the licensing
products

 

[twerpinator]

Please suggest me best licensing tool/utility to support for the java
product.

The best "licensing tool" to support your software is none at all. The
software will be much more useful, usable, trustworthy, and valuable
to your customers if you do not cripple it with code deliberately
designed to make it sometimes not work, hobble it with spyware, and
riddle it with back door functionality.

 

[Joe Attardi]

The best "licensing tool" to support your software is none at all. The
software will be much more useful, usable, trustworthy, and valuable
to your customers if you do not cripple it with code deliberately
designed to make it sometimes not work, hobble it with spyware, and
riddle it with back door functionality.

What's wrong with a company (which, presumably, exists to make money)
trying to make money off of software they create?

Surely free/open source software and commercial software can coexist
without conspiracy theories such as deliberately including spyware and
backdoors?

Case in point: Eclipse vs IntelliJ IDEA. Personally, I prefer Eclipse
because it is free. But IDEA is a wonderfully put together application
as well. No spyware or backdoors, just a really solid Java IDE. It's
JetBrains' prerogative if they want to charge for it. If I had the money
to spare, I'd consider buying it. Luckily there are two great free
alternatives - Eclipse and NetBeans. Not always the case, unfortunately,
but that doesn't mean commercial software should be discouraged.

Unless you ask the FSF, of course, and then anything other than
completely free and open software is the devil's work.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Please suggest me best licensing ...

Why not sell support (or upgrades)?

Selling upgrades may not be practical for a JWS app.,
but support is something that nobody can steal from you.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.physci.org/

Message posted via JavaKB.com
http://www.javakb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/java-general/200712/1

 

[twerpinator]

What's wrong with a company (which, presumably, exists to make money)
trying to make money off of software they create?

Why, nothing, of course. But then that wasn't what I was objecting to,
either.

Surely free/open source software and commercial software can coexist
without conspiracy theories such as deliberately including spyware and
backdoors?

Surely they can, and indeed they often do. Which makes me wonder why
the OP wants to include such in the software he's developing.

Case in point: Eclipse vs IntelliJ IDEA. Personally, I prefer Eclipse
because it is free. But IDEA is a wonderfully put together application
as well. No spyware or backdoors, just a really solid Java IDE. It's
JetBrains' prerogative if they want to charge for it.

Sure it is. And its my prerogative if I want to use Eclipse instead,
and yours if you want to pay and use IDEA instead. But none of this is
relevant to the original issue, which was an OP wanting to put WGA-
style user-hostile "functionality" into his product. Apparently he
hasn't learned from what's happened to Microsoft over WGA, and Sony
over their rootkit, and the like.

If I had the money
to spare, I'd consider buying it. Luckily there are two great free
alternatives - Eclipse and NetBeans. Not always the case, unfortunately,
but that doesn't mean commercial software should be discouraged.

If I'd been trying to discourage commercial software then you'd have a
point here. But I'm not. I'm merely trying to discourage particular
nasty, user-hostile deliberate sabotage of products. That's just plain
stupid -- wanting users to pay for the privilege of being spied on and
subjected to a central ability to shut down their productivity, and
for what?

It's not like the commercial software business model depends on doing
such dirty tricks. Microsoft made a mint of Windows 3.1 and Windows
95/98/ME, without any of those having "license manager" components or
other evil WGA-like stuff; same with many versions of Office. The most
they sometimes had was a CD key wanted by the install process. Nothing
that stayed active, phoning home or meddling with the user's use of
the software after the fact. Sure, a lot of illicit copies got
installed, and MS never got paid for those, but MS wouldn't have
gotten paid for those anyway, and MS DID get paid for a lot of other
copies, enough to become huge and for the CEO to become the richest
man on the planet -- BEFORE WGA. So don't tell me that things like WGA
are at all necessary to having a commercial software business model.

Unless you ask the FSF, of course, and then anything other than
completely free and open software is the devil's work.

Of course, the FSF's views are not at issue here either.

 

[Joe Attardi]

Surely they can, and indeed they often do. Which makes me wonder why
the OP wants to include such in the software he's developing.

The OP makes no mention of this in the original post. The original post
said:

"Please suggest me best licensing tool/utility to support for the java
product.
Any link helps me suggest the differenceies between the licensing
products"

Given the fact that English is not the OP's first language, it seems a
safe assumption that the OP is simply asking about a package or library
to handle serial number/license management. How does this translate to
spyware and rootkits, exactly?

And its my prerogative if I want to use Eclipse instead,
and yours if you want to pay and use IDEA instead.

You may want to re-read the paragraph you just quoted. Particularly the
part that says, "I prefer Eclipse"...

the original issue, which was an OP wanting to put WGA-
style user-hostile "functionality" into his product. Apparently he
hasn't learned from what's happened to Microsoft over WGA, and Sony
over their rootkit, and the like.

Again I reiterate - there was nothing in the original post that
specified WGA-style "user-hostile" functionality...

I'm merely trying to discourage particular
nasty, user-hostile deliberate sabotage of products. That's just plain
stupid -- wanting users to pay for the privilege of being spied on and
subjected to a central ability to shut down their productivity, and
for what?

If the OP was inquiring about this style of license management, I'd be
totally in agreement with you. WGA-style "activation" schemes is
certainly hostile to the user and _should_ be discouraged! But I
honestly don't think this is what the OP was asking about here...

So don't tell me that things like WGA
are at all necessary to having a commercial software business model.

Oh, no, they are definitely not necessary - that wasn't the point I was
trying to make - On WGA and the like, you and I are in perfect
agreement; it is simply wrong.

I think you misunderstood the OP's original question - or, maybe I did
instead - we'll never know unless Ravi posts again with more detailed
information.

 

[nebulous99]

The OP makes no mention of this in the original post. The original post
said:

"Please suggest me best licensing tool/utility to support for the java
product.
Any link helps me suggest the differenceies between the licensing
products"

Given the fact that English is not the OP's first language, it seems a
safe assumption that the OP is simply asking about a package or library
to handle serial number/license management. How does this translate to
spyware and rootkits, exactly?

"Licensing tool" brings to mind things like what Adobe recently got
into hot water over -- it was, more or less, spyware. Simple serial
number type stuff is not what that term brings to mind for me. Even
that, I'd say, is unnecessary and user-hostile, though far less so
than more elaborate copy protection schemes. Plenty of commercial
software has been released in history that did not use any mechanisms
like this at all and could easily be copied, yet sold enough for the
company selling it to survive and make a tidy profit. In fact, studies
have shown that the ability to get copies for free not only doesn't
significantly depress sales of such software, but may actually
increase them, as people who would not pay anyway get copies, and some
of these recommend it to their friends, or network effects kick in
such as occur if the "freeloaders" produce documents unreadable by
other software. (Pirated copies of MSOffice are thought to have
actually contributed somewhat to M$'s bottom line by such indirect
mechanisms during the nineties.)

Ultimately, this stems more generally from the fact that "freeloaders"
on a nonrival resource don't have the negative impact of freeloaders
on a limited resource.

Again I reiterate - there was nothing in the original post that
specified WGA-style "user-hostile" functionality...

Specified? No. Implied? Perhaps. The OP being warned of the
consequences of using user-hostile methods will do no harm if he never
intended to, and may be of benefit if he did, but changes his mind as
a result of the recommendation not to use such methods.

Other people reading this may also find something useful in this.

If the OP was inquiring about this style of license management, I'd be
totally in agreement with you. WGA-style "activation" schemes is
certainly hostile to the user and _should_ be discouraged!

That's good.

Oh, no, they are definitely not necessary - that wasn't the point I was
trying to make - On WGA and the like, you and I are in perfect
agreement; it is simply wrong.

I think you misunderstood the OP's original question - or, maybe I did
instead - we'll never know unless Ravi posts again with more detailed
information.

Which, given that over a week has passed now without further posts by
Ravi, seems unlikely, for better or worse.

(Odd -- Joe Attardi being polite and not very confrontational? Maybe a
positive sign. )

 

[Joe Attardi]

(Odd -- Joe Attardi being polite and not very confrontational? Maybe a
positive sign. )

I have no quarrel with you in this thread - just in a different one.
There's no reason to spill it over into this one too (lest we end up
with another "Great SWT Program")

 

[Roedy Green]

see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/installer.html

Simple installers will make your code run for 30 days, thereafter need
a digitally signed version of the user's name. These could be fairly
easily defanged, but most users are not up to such hacking.