I agree that the documentation is minimal and could use some
improvement but a worse case scenario thinker must have
anticipated for sure that jumping to production without a proper
understanding of the possibilities and limitations of the tool comes
with some risks ;-).
Regards, Andu Novac
Ambrosia's approach is to have the software phone home to perform validation
of the reg code.
I've heard this approach discussed. Many believe it's a serious
privacy intrusion, unless you're upfront in letting people know the
software does this. I like any idea that helps reduce piracy.
Allowing anyone with an existing
license key to defeat the Starter Kit limits with no restrictions is a
recipe for disaster, however, and so is not something we're willing to
consider.
Regards,
Scott
Yes I understand this, Scott, I'm sure we all do! Software
protection is a major
Recently, Shari wrote:
At the very least, the documentation should be very very clear about
the standalone limitations, such as not being able to edit a script
from within a script, or set the script of object to... or even get
word 3 of the script of...
Actually, there's no reason why you
I agree that the documentation is minimal and could use some improvement
but a worse case scenario thinker must have anticipated for sure that
jumping to production without a proper understanding of the possibilities
and limitations of the tool comes with some risks ;-).
Regards, Andu Novac
Shari wrote:
The whole issue of cracks is a much discussed one. And authors are
split as to how they handle the issue. Some say not to spend too
much time over your protections, to accept that cracks will happen,
and blow it off. Others take the opposite tack. I'm a worse case
scenario
Recently, Shari wrote:
Is it possible that you password-protected the stack in the standalone? I
think you should be able to do all the above provided the stack is not
protected.
One embedded stack is encrypted, but not the one that used the
handler, or the one the handler was in.
I
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 Scott Rossi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To Scott Raney Company: would it make sense to add a licenseKey property
or something similar to permit creation of licensed standalones that can
modify scripts? Don't know if this would make MC too accessible to folks
who haven't
Is it possible that you password-protected the stack in the standalone? I
think you should be able to do all the above provided the stack is not
protected.
One embedded stack is encrypted, but not the one that used the
handler, or the one the handler was in.
I ran into several limitations in
The update mac menubar handler I posted here recently fails in a standalone.
You cannot do anything in a standalone that tampers with a script.
You cannot change a script. You cannot even get a script. You
cannot set the script of an object to anything but what it was when
saved as a
Recently, Shari wrote:
The update mac menubar handler I posted here recently fails in a standalone.
You cannot do anything in a standalone that tampers with a script.
You cannot change a script. You cannot even get a script. You
cannot set the script of an object to anything but what
Shari wrote:
The update mac menubar handler I posted here recently fails in a standalone.
You cannot do anything in a standalone that tampers with a script.
Standalones are just stacks with embedded starter kits, and so are
limited to 10-line scripts. Pre-existing longer scripts are fine,
12 matches
Mail list logo
