Guys,

 I just wanted to interject my 2 cents worth into this conversation,
 then I'll leave you all alone.

 I know that software piracy is rampant and a bad thing.  I also
 realize that preventing your software from being plagarized is
 a problem.  And that some means of protecting your time investment
 in the code you have written is justified or even required.

 But, I have used a few programs in my time that required a dongle
 and I must tell you I HATE THEM WITH A PASSION.  I was a legitimate
 user of these packages, and the dongles to me were an unnecessary
 PITA.  I think there should have been a better or at least different
 method of protection used.  And no I don't really have a better
 idea for protection.   I do know that a lot of the packages I used
 were so expensive that that was the main reason for the dongle
 protection.   But it seems to me that if the software didn't cost
 an arm and a leg in the first place, people would be less likely
 to pirate it in the second place.  It would be easier for them to
 just go buy the package.

 Anyway, just wanted to vent a little steam.  And this is not meant
 to say that dongles don't have their place.   Apparently they do
 seeings they have been in use for 20+ years or so.  It's just that
 I personally will not buy a piece of software or use a piece of
 software that is dongle protected.   I don't condone software piracy
 and do not participate in piracy.  And I wouldn't expect anyone else
 to either, but we all know that it goes on every day.

 Good luck in you venture.  I hope the dongle protection scheme
 doesn't lose you business.

 I'm done now.


                                           Regards,

                                             Jim




On Thu, 02 August 2001, Barry Gershenfeld wrote:

>
> >I have never heard of software suppliers modifying the pinout of the dongles
> >provided by the dongle manufacturer. I would doubt this would actually
> >happen as they seem to use the control pins on the ports to send an I2C type
> >serial communication between the dongle and the port.
> >
> >Early dongles used I2C EEPROM's as discrete chips.
>
> This was so simple that it wasn't even I2C.  And the software
> writer didn't do the pin reassignment, you just requested
> it as a configuration option when you had the dongle
> made.  I'm sure you all realize that you use one of
> the data lines as a clock, rather than the real strobe
> line of the parallel port.
>
> As the discussion of how to make or use dongles goes on
> I'll mention that doing timing-dependent things is
> another trick I've seen.
>
> I forgot that we used another vendor before we used
> Rainbow, so some of this may apply to the earlier
> devices.
>
> Barry
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

jim@jpes.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.