Clever Monkey <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Reinder Verlinde wrote:
>> In article <1177661623.539860.216780@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> xkp <veidt1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> i would like to know what is the most popular way in the Mac world to
>>> protect/licensing a commercial software
>>
>> I know this is not what you want to hear, but IMO the popular way to
>> protect software is to provide a good product with good sup****t and to
>> trust your customers.
>>
>> Require me to enter my name and a lengthy serial number at installation
>> time is about as far as I would want to go. I should still be able to
>> copy that executable to a new machine without having to go through that
>> process.
>>
> While I might agree in principle, there is little evidence to suggest
> that /other/ people feel, or act, the same way. A non-intrusive
> licensing model is often the only way to actually, you know, get paid
> for your work without pissing off the majority of your users.
Given how many successful software companies out there use nothing beyond
a name and serial number, and how few use more sophisticated licensing
schemes, I object to your use of the word "often" in that sentence.
It may be necessary, rarely, to use such a scheme in order to stay afloat.
It may be helpful in many more instances, but we simply can't know for
sure. In any case, it's obviously possible to run a successful software
company without fancy licensing schemes, since there are a large number of
existence proofs out there.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
|
