home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!tware!bash
- From: bash@tware.com (Paul Bash)
- Subject: Re: PC/TCP 2.1 copy protection
- Message-ID: <1992Sep9.215825.3145@tware.com>
- Organization: Techware Design, Boulder, Colorado
- References: <1992Sep8.214208.41914@clinicom.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:58:25 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Sep8.214208.41914@clinicom.com> john@clinicom.com (John Hensley) writes:
- >
- >Is anyone else torqued about this, or am I letting my bias against copy
- >protection cloud my judgment of a handy new network management feature? Any
- >suggestions for how FTP could protect their software *without* catching hell
- >from people like me? Just doesn't seem likely, given the nature of the product,
- >but I'd sure like the current policy to change....
- >
-
- About a year ago when I first heard about this, I asked the same questions you
- are asking about in this newsgroup. The consensus was "tough". Most people
- seemed to feel that FTP was within their rights to do this and many thought
- they _needed_ to do it. I, like you, disagree that this is necessary.
-
- Anyway, you can get an non copy protected version if you have a site license
- so you shouldn't be impacted at all. Its those of us with < 10 (or whatever
- the magic "site license" threshhold is) copies that get the shaft. So be it.
-
- Fight copy protection by not buying products that are protected. Unlike
- previous years, there are several excellent alternatives now to FTP Software
- for PC TCP/IP packages.
-
- By the way, this was, I'm told, "requested by our foreign VAR's due to
- problems with extreme piracy". B.S.
-
- --
- Paul Bash Techware Design
- bash@tware.com Boulder, CO U.S.A.
-