#software protection
9 messages in this thread
A few weeks ago, I read with interest the discussion about protecting
AutoCAD 3rd Party packages. I'm sorry to say, but I wouldn't pay a nickel
for some of the garbage that I've seen. I work for a civil engineering
company and we purchased a COGO package that was just dogmeat. (I won't say
its name because some people actually think the package is 'special', but it
did start with 'Auto') A number of the routines just plain didn't work. And
it got worse when we upgraded to 2.5. I called and complained (of course).
They mentioned that there were no bugs in the code (of course). Since they
refused to help solve our problem, I asked for the source code. They said
'no' (of course). Because it is my job to make the computers compute, I felt
forced to 'crack' the code. The biggest thing that rests in my mind is the
'CLEAN' function that wiped out half the !atomlist. I was horrified. The code
was terrible. I am convinced that the only reason they protected the code
was to hide their incompetency. It turns out that my boss decided that it was
not worth the effort (or the lawsuit) to try and salvage this COGO package.
We ended up creating our own and have never used their COGO for chargeable
hours.
I (of course) have solutions to the above situation: if you can't
write/document good code -or- you can't update your code to take advantage of
the latest features in AutoCAD -or- you can't support your products and
clients – then don't try to sell software. I don't care about the price of
the software, just so long as it works (with limited hassle).
I understand that one can't freely give out their code. You can't support
the product if the client makes changes to it. And it is not wise to let
everyone know your trade secrets. But the solution is to make the source
code available, for a price. Charge enough to make it worth your while to
support the client. And protect your rights with non-disclosures and
what-nots. The point is: offer the client an alternative to breaking the law,
and they probably won't.
Ciao, Jason Osgood – Alacrity
Jason,
HERE, HERE!!. ALL Looking Glass Microproducts AutoLisp code (except
for demo disks) is shipped Not-Kelvinated, Not-Ecripted, and
Not-Copy-Protected. Furthermore, I discourage the purchase of ANY
copy-protected programs by my clients.
Phil Kreiker
Looking Glass Microproducts
AutoCAD / Engineer Works Dealer / 3rd Party Developer
HERE, HERE AGAIN,
All CIMtechnologies products are shipped with source code and changes to
this code are encouraged. Of course we cannot offer free phone support on
changed code, we feel that these changes can eventually be used to increase
our products capabilities. Unfortunately we write code for some companies
who want it protected. All our code written for our products is open. BTW
phone support is for registered users only…
Dave Sly
CIM technologies Corp.
Authors of VALDEP
Visually Aided Layout and DEsign Program
A program to help Industrial Engineers optimize material,machine location
and minimize material handling.
(515)-296-9914
The concept of paying for the source is a good one, but the guy who owns the
code makes that decision.
Perhaps we (with AEC) will take that concept to heart, but that is seems like
a wish list item to me.
You know there are other reasons to Kelvinate. One is smaller code that loads
faster. I think it will even run faster in cases where you may have used
large variable names.
It would be nice if you could just sell software without the concern of
piracy, but you can't.
And in light of "Bad Code" authors, will we start to have an "At the Command:
line" critique on programing code?
I can see it now…..
Roger> "I got to line 45 were he did a (command "osnap" "end") and was amazed
at his ignorance. He obviously has no concept on what the readers are looking
for."
Gene> "I think your wrong there, I felt it was an original and refreshing way
of performing an old routine, I give it a thumbs up!"
CLICK! I wonder what's on cable?>
You know, the way a program's code is set up can really depend on the
theories of operation that the programer had in mind. – And – Perhaps it IS
bad or useless code but those of us without sin, compile the first byte.
My suggestion is to outline to the author what you consider to be the faults
of the routine, so he can either refute or learn from your observations.
Jamie
Jamie:
Geez, you're such a nice guy. >Roger…I don't think nice guys should have
opinions. Everyone wants to punch them out instead of the guy that's causing
the problem. >Jamie…Explicative deleted…WHAM!!!!.
Speaking of bad code. My viewset lisp routine only works for 12" monitors, I
recently discovered. (Or should I say, monitors that display with the same
ratio as mine) I will work on a fix. Please add a comment to the descrip, if
you can, while I fix it. Thanks.
Craig.
.
Jason,
What, you mean someone else bought the same JUNK ! I can empathize
with your problem, it's driven me to produce my own work arrounds also…
Probably we should all get together and market our routines as GENERIC COGO
for the user who wants to get something done with AutoCAD……and not age 20
years in the process………
But as far as Kelvinating code……there are good reasons to do it… Code
compaction, and a bit more speed….not to mention that it may keep those few
hackers from messing with a necessarily complex, and possibly fragile set of
relationships that would be almost impossible to support… As there are
always others that think they KNOW better than the programmers, whatever the
simlicity and ease of operation……..
But, the poor compiled, and sometimes useless code gave me the incentive to
learn Lisp, and create user specific solutions to a process that a general
program can never hope to solve…….so I'm not about to yell TOO MUCH !
But I am convinced that lisp programming is not a casual undertaking, and the
existance of complex source code may be more of a nuisance in the long
run…….it usually takes as long to figure out what has been done, as it
does to write it yourself………and you're still stuck with messing with
their code in the future…….esentially someone else's solutions and
thinking………
However, I'm sure what we're all looking for is a good working product that
automates some drudgey tasks……letting machines do what they do best, and
hopefully lets me go home at 5 feeling like less of a machine, and more of a
person………<grin>
rlh
You Gentlemen are all missing one vital point, somepeople out there really
like this package, some others hate but love another one. What I really would
love to see is some try-out packages like the $100 Acad demo that give you a
real chance to let your customer see if the software fits his needs and wants
without having to invest in a pig in a poke. If you could try it before you
bought it then why would you even want the source code, if it didn't work
then your not out that much. To much time is wasted re-inventing the wheel
because we've already spent our budgets and hve bought the wrong thing. Why
doesn't someone come up with a way to lock up some of Acad commands from
inside lisp so that while your lisp was running in demo mode Acad was hobled.
Maybe no saving or plotting, that way you could test the features but would
still need the real thing to make use of it.
Corky Deeds LightSpeed Corp.
Corky,
This sounds like a good idea to me…….I don't see why a reasonable
demo can't be set up,
But I watched a Real live working demo of the non-mentioned product that was
poorly done by the presenter, and THEN improperly evaluated by the enginering
staff who appeared to be of the opinion that if it worked on the screen, it's
ours……………
Never mind that it could'nt solve the real problems we were facing
……..so, as you say we might have gone back to re-invent the wheel.
Real working demos are a good idea……..Working Minds are Better.
rlh
Jason,
I ship no encripted code for several reasons. First, if someone wants
in as you did, it is a minor inconvience to unprotect and unKelvinate.
Second, if there is a support problem, I can usually fix it over
the phone and talk my client through the editing. I once gave a crash
course in Edlin. Thirdly, I have enough trouble keeping track of
versions, programs, what runs with what else, etc. Using only source
code is one less thing to mess up.
I know my products will be pirated, therefore I pack each with extra
labels. If it is distributed, I want my name on it.
I am releasing a product called THE PATTERN MAKER which is Kelvinated
for speed of loading. If there is room on the diskette we will include
the source code.
Regards, Ray Brandes — Brandes Design —
.