PureBasic Forums - English

Hi,
Just wondering, but why isn´t the PureBasic installer package (IDE + compiler) copy protected ?
Until now, fortunately, only very rarely an illegal PB copy circulates on the net. However PB is
growing in power and potential and will draw more attention - and so the risk of illegal copies
will rise ! Binding a PB installation to the hardware of a computer or doing a server license
check would be a good idea very soon.
cw

I think GameMaker is a pretty cool product and I used to use it regularly. Not long after Mark sold it I abandoned it for just that reason: It acquired the copy protection you speak of and it became too much of a pain in the ass to reinstall if you needed to. Then I found out that they only allow you three installs total then you have to buy it again. That finished it for me.

I'm not sure why PureBasic isn't pirated more than it is and I've no idea what steps have been taken to prevent it. Probably better not to talk about it. One thing I'm confident of though; If Fred finds a copy on some pirate site I bet he can download it and see who he sold it to.

netmaestro wrote:I think GameMaker is a pretty cool product and I used to use it regularly. Not long after Mark sold it I abandoned it for just that reason: It acquired the copy protection you speak of and it became too much of a pain in the ass to reinstall if you needed to. Then I found out that they only allow you three installs total then you have to buy it again. That finished it for me.

The same here. The worst part was that the startup time was prolonged by several seconds. People like PureBasic because it's light and fast. This kind of copy protection would ruin PB's reputation.

It is out there, if you know where to look, but perhaps it's not so much of a target due to lack of a good bug-free visual designer? That's my theory -- people may not want to code their GUIs by hand and so drop PureBasic for something easier.

Binding it to hardware would suck. I use my PureBasic on three different PCs (home, laptop, work) and I sure as hell don't want to buy three licenses to do that, and then another one each time my work PC is swapped for another, as happens occasionally.

I like PureBasic just the way it is. PureBasic has been around and existed for well over a decade so these piracy fears you have are quite unfounded. It would've died off years ago if Fred wasn't making enough money from it to continue.

All we have ours opinions about that, myself included.
But you didn't ask for that, so the only good answer to your question must come from Fred.

I disagree about everything you wrote, by the way.

Why bother to spend time on a complex protection scheme when it will be cracked anyway ? All major software i know have been cracked and can be found on the net. Copy protection is just useless the way it is and only bother the one which actually pay for the software.

BTW: as PureBasic doesn't have a protection, it doesn't raise the interest of cracking groups, as just spreading an untouched installer is kind of L4m3.

Sure, everything can be cracked, that subject has been chewed over and over.
But that is not a reason not to use any check or protection at all. Otherwise
it would not exist in almost all commercial software. What is wrong with my
thinking ?
cw

What is wrong with my thinking ?

Copy protection gives the product less value for customers -> Less happy customers -> Less customers

Copy protection attracts crackers -> More piracy -> Less customers

I think if a product is priced right it's likelihood of being pirated is much less. And as Fred mentioned, why bother with protection, it ends up under the radar of that culture.
I'm sure the crackers never end up using the apps that modify anyway. It's the game they play ...

netmaestro wrote:I think GameMaker is a pretty cool product and I used to use it regularly. Not long after Mark sold it I abandoned it for just that reason: It acquired the copy protection you speak of and it became too much of a pain in the ass to reinstall if you needed to.

Have you ever looked at Construct? Pretty impressive: http://www.scirra.com/

codewalker wrote: What is wrong with my
thinking ?
cw

Nothing at all - except that it's a vendor way thinking and Fred favors customer-centric thinking. Another reason he and PureBasic have such an supportive, loyal customer base.

At the end of the day, it's Fred's choice and I'm happy he chooses to do business the way he does.

cheers

Yup yup! Fred assumes people aren't assholes ;P
And the few assholes that do pirate PureBasic and dare show their heads on these forum get lynched pretty fast, unless the mods ban them first.
I guess one can say that the PureBasic community is self-regulating or self-policing for lack of a better term.
It also doesn't hurt that the forums is the unofficial Fred fanclub either

Fred wrote:BTW: as PureBasic doesn't have a protection, it doesn't raise the interest of cracking groups, as just spreading an untouched installer is kind of L4m3.

Fred is pretty right!

Also, to 'spread the untouched installer', you need to buy it first... and it's obvious that almost no one who have paid for purebasic wants to distribute it for free.

Also, to 'spread the untouched installer', you need to buy it first... and it's obvious
that almost no one who have paid for purebasic wants to distribute it for free.

Under what internet rock do you come from The internet is loaded with illegal
uploads on just about any torrent, usenet, rapidshare or whatever download site. The fight
against piracy is almost everyday news on the internet. But I bet you know all of that as well !

But besides that, another point : if you would download a programming package (ide+compiler)
and it would be without a user license serialnumber, server-license check, etc. etc. you would be
happy right ? But at the same time would this not give you the impression that such a package
probably isn´t as professional as others, because they all do have a license serial number, server
license check, etc etc ! And yet, PB certainly has become as professional as others in the same
category and even outperforms well known other languages. (no need to mention them)

All right, until now, very rarely an illegal PB copy circulates on the net, but without any protection
at all, will it stay this way in the future ?
cw.

I guess you didn't understand me right...

As Fred said, those crackers are more interested in cracking programs, and showing their power, their coding knowledge and stuff... How could one crack Purebasic if it doesn't require any serial or stuff? The demo version isn't crackable (i think) you can't make it fully functional just by using some key, you need an account to download the full version, and if there is any Purebasic full download available somewhere, it is because someone bought it and shared it over the internet - which is such a stupid thing to do in my opinion.

I agree that Fred and the team should have a way to know who posted some PB download in any website, a unique id inside the program or compiler, whatever, that could point to that person, so this person wouldn't have rights to download a new PB version. That would be fair enough.