Okay. So how do you do it in Unix? Todd.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Heinz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:48 PM Subject: RE: [DUG] Licencing schemes > John asked: > > > The scheme you mentioned appeals greatly because of its > > simplicity - applies > > to licencing up to a fixed licenced number of concurrent users. I didn't > > know there was a way to lock one byte - how do you do that?? > > It's essentially a pair of Win32 APIs (LockFile and UnlockFile). You can > look them up on MSDN for the full details. > > function LockFile(hFile: THandle; dwFileOffsetLow, dwFileOffsetHigh: DWORD; > nNumberOfBytesToLockLow, nNumberOfBytesToLockHigh: DWORD): BOOL; stdcall; > > dwFileOffsetHigh and nNumberOfBytesToLockHigh need to be 0 for Win9X > compatibility (if you care). > > So, to lock a single byte, pick an appropriate dwFileOffset and use a > NumberOfBytesToLock of 1. > > Also, the file doesn't need to be as long as you have 'slots' i.e. it can > even have a size of 0 since you can happily lock any bytes you like, even > those beyond the end of the file. > > A gotcha to be aware of is that, in Win32 unlike Unix, you can't read bytes > under a lock so don't lock anything which you will need to be able to read > whilst any locks exist. > > > I was more leaning to licencing it per screen installed - it can be more > > costly for the users but as the app is likely to be running much > > of the day that is academic in this case. > > Well, we've been using lock-based concurrent user licensing for Profax (and > now Accredo) since ummm.. ages ago i.e. right back to the DOS versions in > the 80s and 90s. Technically, it's pretty hard to beat for simplicity, > reliability, and enforceability. > > On the non-technical level, our experience is that customers accept > concurrent licensing as more 'fair'. I think this is simply because they > feel they are paying for _actual use_ and more use equals more business > value which justifies paying more. > > Seat-based licensing is generally felt to be somewhat less 'fair' since they > are forced to pay for _potential use_ i.e. because they might _rarely_ need > to use your software from some PC, they have to pay as if they always use it > from that PC. > > As seat-based licensing is essentially unenforceable (unless you plan on > demanding to physically audit your customer!) it boils down to an 'honesty' > system and since customers often feel seats-based is less fair, at best they > are likely to only buy as many seats as they actually use or, at worst, they > will cheat and under-license. > > So, my opinion is that, without compelling reasons to the contrary, you are > generally better off with concurrent use licensing revenue-wise. > > TTFN, > Paul. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Delphi mailing list > [email protected] > http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.5 - Release Date: 21/04/2006 > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.5 - Release Date: 21/04/2006 _______________________________________________ Delphi mailing list [email protected] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
