PureBasic Forums - English

could set up trusted customers database, who are willing to send Chris some sort of signed pledge

Not if your income relies on that source code. Of course there is such a thing as a trustworthy customer, but you can never tell who is.

The one and only valid reason for releasing the source is to give the developers that use the lib peace of mind that their apps can continue to be enhanced even if the ProGUI lib stopped being enhanced. It is an issue because a lib can be tightly bound to something that the OS producers suddenly drop from their repertoire (as if MS would do something like that........ ).

Chris can entrust an up-to-date version of his source to a close family member or legally bound business partner so that it can be publicly released in the event of a disaster (in due course), so that the customers may rest assured that they will not be left 'high and dry'. This is mostly a *psychological thing anyway, because if the lib development stops for technical reasons, those reasons will probably affect the apps using it too.

*I have umpteen old collections of source from my early CP/M and Unix days. I'm never going to use it again but somehow cannot bin it......

Chris, I understand the pain. I had software stolen from me by a major company and couldn't afford to fight them. Still, I have to do what I enjoy.

It's either that or crochet beanies all day (yes, I do crochet)

I'd buy your product too but as Kuron mentioned hospital bills, they have just sidelined. Just came out of surgery myself and got slugged 2 and a half thousand dollars. No need to get into the gory details.

Tell srod that it wasn't sheep removal!!

Fangbeast wrote:got slugged 2 and a half thousand dollars.

I'll trade you bills

IdeasVacuum wrote:Don't publish the source. You can instead pledge to release the source if you decide to stop developing ProGUI, or heaven forbid, something happens to you.

Uh, as I said earlier I'm planning to purchase ProGUI Platinum (source code version). First of all it might help me understanding some API stuff and second it's the only way no external DLL has to be supplied with my software, or am I wrong?!

You are wrong, there is a compiled library (with tailbite I believe).

http://www.progui.co.uk/register.html wrote:Full platinum version of ProGUI: €80.00 EUR ($115 USD)

[...]

* Full source code to ProGUI!

Greetings ... Kiffi

I would never be able to understand the source, so I'm not too worried about it. But I also purchased the Platinum license for peace of mind.

I don't see how having to reply/sign a document via snail-mail or something similar would impede your ability to make money though. I mean you have the functional DLL and Userlib, until such a time as you can be furnished with the source. A matter of a couple of days back and forth via courier..

However, I am sure there are plenty of solutions that can be considered. No one will like all of them, but that's not a reason not to go with one.

Far too intrusive, but something I thought of was license verification at compile time, or some other kind of periodic method. I've purchased software which is tied to the NIC on an old motherboard and its only a matter of contacting the author to reset my registration.

Zach wrote:However, I am sure there are plenty of solutions that can be considered. No one will like all of them, but that's not a reason not to go with one.

Far too intrusive, but something I thought of was license verification at compile time, or some other kind of periodic method. I've purchased software which is tied to the NIC on an old motherboard and its only a matter of contacting the author to reset my registration.

I suggest to drop any license verification.
It'll get cracked anyway and is just a waste of time/money, just look at Microsoft with their activation system on the phone/internet, it just makes no sense.

The idea is to deter the average user, not big time crackers, and to mitigate losses to piracy.

Copy protection is a valid security component of any software, but it is never intended to absolutely stop the problem. People need to stop looking at it in that way.

Zach wrote:The idea is to deter the average user, not big time crackers, and to mitigate losses to piracy.

In general, this is very good when you are targeting the average home user with your product.

For something aimed at programmers, the likelihood of your work being cracked, hacked or shared without permission is greater because your EU is more technically inclined than the average home user.

No matter what, your work is always going to be stolen or otherwise compromised. It is inevitable and a pirated product (whether aimed at home users or programmers) does not necessarily mean a lost sale. Unfortunately, DRM can cost you sales due to people not wanting to deal with the hassle.

Exactly. This is so true for music as well. Why would someone buy a DRM music files (with all the hassle it implies) when they can download it (not legally) without any of the annoying stupid protection? No wonders why Itunes and all is now dropping the protection on MP3 and such.

Funnily users sometimes expect some kind of protection if they bought a program!
Once an early version of one of my programs didn't have any kind of protection. You only got a personal (and time limited) download link when you've purchased it. Then after a while someone asked me where his serial number is and why he didn't had to type it in somewhere before running the program...
What I've learned from it? A basic type of protection can be useful and doesn't even have to be bad for the user.

The good news is, that you can detect the illegal/unlicensed use of something like ProGUI in a compiled binary. So anybody who uses the leaked source and releases software, has to face being named+shamed and get legal trouble if they ever used the unlicensed stolen ProGUI source in their product. IMHO Chris can only hope that somebody is stupid enough to do that and has financial success The costs would be much higher then a regular license.

The bad news is that the world is full of amateurs who will think "LOL!! its a binary!! nobody can see the source!!" just like the people who think they are "anonymous" in the internet when they download music/videos illegally. Those always exist and only learn by personal experience.

IMHO the real financial loss by such a leak, won't be that much of a problem.

There are non-intrusive ways to find out who leaks sources, legal customers wouldnt even notice. But thats one thing i wouldnt want to discuss in detail in public.

Thanks for all the comments guys, I appreciate it! and you've given me lots to think about.
I think the fairest thing to do rather than punish everybody just because of one person is to keep the current system of emailing the source code when Gold/Platinum license is purchased. However each individual source code archive will be uniquely password protected for each user (this is just in-case the person that leaked the source didn't do it on purpose and may have had his/her system hacked). Also the sourcecode will be digitally signed/watermarked from now on specifically to each user, so if it happens again I will know without a doubt who did it and they will be named and shamed as well as further action being taken. I've already implemented the code to do this, it's my own mailing list software that I've created

electrochrisso wrote: I think this might take some shine off ProGUI, as I like to look into Chris's great coding, so I can better understand how things work, especially the API. This was one of the main reasons that made my mind up to buy.

Thanks Chris mate!

Fangbeast wrote:Chris, I understand the pain. I had software stolen from me by a major company and couldn't afford to fight them. Still, I have to do what I enjoy.

It's either that or crochet beanies all day (yes, I do crochet)

lol thanks dude, yes I feel the same. I have to continue with what I love doing and most importantly you guys appreciate what I'm doing so it's worth it

Fangbeast wrote: I'd buy your product too but as Kuron mentioned hospital bills, they have just sidelined. Just came out of surgery myself and got slugged 2 and a half thousand dollars. No need to get into the gory details.

Ouch! sorry to hear about that, at least one good thing about being in the UK is medical care is free (but that's probably the only thing, everything else is so expensively taxed)

Fangbeast wrote:Tell srod that it wasn't sheep removal!!

haha lol

Zach wrote:I would never be able to understand the source, so I'm not too worried about it. But I also purchased the Platinum license for peace of mind.

Yep mate I decided to release the source based on Steven's (srod) advice for just that reason (just in case anything bad ever happened to me). The source does contain a wealth of knowledge though and once you become more comfortable with the Windows API, ProGUI contains just about everything you would ever need to know (plus tricks of the traid ).

Zach wrote:The idea is to deter the average user, not big time crackers, and to mitigate losses to piracy.

Copy protection is a valid security component of any software, but it is never intended to absolutely stop the problem. People need to stop looking at it in that way.

Yes I agree, ProGUI is sufficiently protected to put off your typical programmer however it is not too difficult to intrigue an experienced cracker into wanting to spend time breaking the security.

Kuron wrote: No matter what, your work is always going to be stolen or otherwise compromised. It is inevitable and a pirated product (whether aimed at home users or programmers) does not necessarily mean a lost sale. Unfortunately, DRM can cost you sales due to people not wanting to deal with the hassle.

Yep I hate DRM too and would never implement such a system, it's the equivalent of holding a red flag to a bull as far as crackers are concerned anyway.

Ramihyn_ wrote:The good news is, that you can detect the illegal/unlicensed use of something like ProGUI in a compiled binary. So anybody who uses the leaked source and releases software, has to face being named+shamed and get legal trouble if they ever used the unlicensed stolen ProGUI source in their product. IMHO Chris can only hope that somebody is stupid enough to do that and has financial success The costs would be much higher then a regular license.

The bad news is that the world is full of amateurs who will think "LOL!! its a binary!! nobody can see the source!!" just like the people who think they are "anonymous" in the internet when they download music/videos illegally. Those always exist and only learn by personal experience.

IMHO the real financial loss by such a leak, won't be that much of a problem.

There are non-intrusive ways to find out who leaks sources, legal customers wouldnt even notice. But thats one thing i wouldnt want to discuss in detail in public.

Absolutely correct Ramihyn_ it is extremely easy for me to see if a binary is compiled using any ProGUI code.

Thanks guys, now goto fix bugs! lol

Chris.

I think the fairest thing to do rather than punish everybody just because of one person

Good to hear Chris, I was thinking that too.

The source does contain a wealth of knowledge though and once you become more comfortable with the Windows API, ProGUI contains just about everything you would ever need to know (plus tricks of the traid

That's what I like about it, I probably will never use any chunks of your code, as I will be using the lib, but it is great to be able to sift through the code and check out all those various API functions for further study from the MS API archives.
It is also good to see how to layout a large project.
Not to mention when you go DirectX, there will be even more valuable learning.