Hello:
I'm replying here, not to perpetuate this worn-out topic, but rather to
answer a legitimate, and I believe, well-taken question. The only
veendor I know for sure to be using this system is HJ; though I have
heard through another lister that Kurzweil used to do it but has now
abandoned it. Teresa Cochran is now researching that and will, I
believe, report on it when she has the complete story. GW Micro's
Window-Eyes definitely does not use any kind of copy protection in
version 3.0 or in any earlier version I have seen.
As to how wide-spread such schemes are, I really can't say. As I have
previously mentioned, Lotus Development used to use a system in which
you had only one install on a disk, and had to get a new one if you
needed to re-install. Gerber, which produces sign-making software, uses
a "Blue Box to prevent installation on an unauthorized system. Of
course, we all know about Microsoft's CD key system. Beyond that, I
really cannot provide any further information. I trust what I have
provided will prove useful.
>From: Peter donahue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Jfw authorization disk. Is it good for the blind?
>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:03:08 -0600
>
> Good morning listers,
>
> I just came in from taking the dog out for his morning airing and
while he
>was relieving himself I had a thought on this whole authorization
scheeme.
>Does anyone know how wide-spread the use of these scheemes are? The
only
>software packages I've seen that employ this type of protection scheeme
is
>adaptive software for the blind. I understand that Kurvweil used to
use
>this scheeme but they discontinued using it probably due to prompting,
and
>perhaps some soul searching on the part of their staff and software
>developers. It is my understanding that Window Bridge employs this
>scheeme as well. Again these are software packages for the blind. I
for
>one have not seen this kind of protection scheeme used by any
developers of
>main-stream software nor do I constantly read front-page headlines of
>software poiracy. And there is a lot of that going on out there among
John
>Q. Public.
>
> This leads me to question whether or not the use of this protection
>scheeme is sending the wrong message to the public about the abilities
and
>the capibilities of the blind. Does it assume wrongly that blind
people
>are more likely to become software poirates and that we can not be
trusted
>with unprotected software not to mention the inconveeniences this use
of
>this scheeme can cause some individuals? What does the use of this
>protection scheeme say to potential employers about the abilities of
blind
>workers; particularly those looking for work in the computer fields?
It
>seems to me that in it'sown way the use of this scheeme tells them to
watch
>out foor their top technical secretes. They have blind computer
thieves
>working for them who are likely to distribute closely guarded secretes,
and
>software to the public at large. You and i know that this is far from
the
>truth. The use of this protection method could in the long run be
doing us
>more harm than good. While it is protecting HJ's business in the
long
>run it could be hurting employment and educational opportunities for
the
>users of their products. It seems to me that if Kurzweil can take the
leap
>of faith and do away with the use of authorizations on their products
then
>HJ should take a hard look at this question and consider doing
likeewise.
>Someone suggested that HJ require that perchasers of their products
sign a
>contract saying that they will not freely distribute JFW or any other
>packages produced by them. However we should keep in mind that many
>main-stream software packages display a warning notice that potential
users
>are encouraged to read before they are given access to the software.
They
>speciffically state that agreeing not to distribute their software is
a
>term of the licensing agreement for the use of these packages and it
simply
>stops there. Beyond that point it's a matter of trust and respect on
the
>part of the software manufacturer. The shareware version of Winzip
is
>one such package. The use of a special contract as suggested by my
>friend could havethe same negative effect as would the use of the
>authorization disk.
>
> While I will not play shoot-em-up up here over this issue I do believe
>that HJ should take a good hard look at this issue and consider an
>alternative that protects their business while at the same time
promotes a
>positive attitude about the abilities and the capibilities of the
blind.
>Now that I've aired out my brain I'm going to give the dog some water
ande
>have some New England clam chowder for brunch. Talk to you later.
>
>Peter Donahue
>We're headed for the future and the future's Now!
>"We're headed for the future"
>"Dreamer"
>
>Peter donahue
>
>
>-
>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-
Visit the jfw ml web page: http://jfw.cjb.net
