A simple license code without activation would suffice, and I'd gladly pay more for that license. Additionally, they could provide unique, "watermarked" downloads of the app for each licensee for legal prosecution if desired. No, it's not the perfect solution, but nothing ever will be. At least this solution doesn't inconvenience the person actually taking the time and financial effort to pay for the software!
The "indecent people" are not the ones that wrote the software or made the decision to implement a draconian licensing mechanism, so no, they are not wasting my time. Regardless, I don't want to turn this into a debate. I asked legitimate support questions relating to the licensing in my original post to which I still hope to get an answer on. The fact is that software copyright infringement will always exist and people like me DO pay for the developer's time. In my own anecdotal experience developing software, the people that infringe would never pay for the software anyway. As someone else already said already -- it's only the paying customers who suffer. On Nov 17, 4:17 pm, Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What would you suggest to them as a license model? It sucks that decent > people have to put blocks up on decent software because indecent people > steal it, the fact is that it's the indecent people who are wasting your > time, not the developers who want to be paid for their work (time). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
