All of Adobe's apps are tied to the computer processor # AND check into 'headquarters' and were a PIA to re-install on CS3, especially if one had run the demo version before. The main reason for CS4 was to try to fix the-now cracked CS3 mess. The Adobe solution was to recommend upgrading to CS4. Their best support dance for CS3 was to issue scary-looking shell scripts that supposedly fixed things.
Shell scripts to users? Yikes. ------------------------- Stephen Barncard San Francisco http://houseofcubes.com/disco.irev On 4 March 2010 09:37, Tiemo Hollmann TB <toolb...@kestner.de> wrote: > I did not mentioned that we had also some steps in between. > > But many of the per-user licenses can be passed on. > I don't know how Adobe or Microsoft prevent people of passing their user > license to other people. > > Tiemo > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: use-revolution-boun...@lists.runrev.com [mailto:use-revolution- > > boun...@lists.runrev.com] Im Auftrag von Richard Gaskin > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. März 2010 18:00 > > An: How to use Revolution > > Betreff: Re: AW: OT: locking software to one specific machine? > > > > Tiemo Hollmann wrote: > > > In the first years our software was - in your intention - completely > > > free of copy protection, later we implemented a copy protection on > > some > > > programs, which were running off the CD. > > > > > > We made the experience, that nobody ever thanked us the ease of use > > and lack > > > of licensing. Just the opposite. Just because our target market is so > > small > > > and lots of people know each other, our software was copied, given > > away > > > without control. > > > > "Completely free of copy protection" is very different from the > > industry-standard per-user license keys I described, and not something > > I > > would advocate for any commercial product. > > > > In markets where piracy is an unusually serious consideration, > > server-based activation can provide reasonable control over license key > > redistribution. If smartly implemented with grace periods, "phone > > home" > > activation should pose no inconvenience to the end-user. > > > > But most successful products don't even do that, they merely use > > pre-generated keys. Per-user license keys have made Adobe, Microsoft, > > Apple, and most other software vendors quite profitable. > > > > Not having any protection at all is, IMO, only appropriate for free > > products. The early years of the computer industry's "shareware" > > experiments proved that convincingly. The difference between "free > > demo" and "full version" need not be onerous to the user, but there > > must > > be some incentive to motivate the user to put in the additional effort > > to fill out an order form. > > > > This is one reason why having PayPal as a payment option is so > > valuable: > > it reduces the payment process to just a single password field and > > one > > click. > > > > -- > > Richard Gaskin > > Fourth World > > Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com > > Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com > > revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv > > _______________________________________________ > > use-revolution mailing list > > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution