Protected Add-ins Cannot Be Allowed...
#1
Posted 12 March 2012 - 11:06 PM
A UCF member send me one of these and this is what it does:
~Posted Image removed by moderator~
It checks the calculator's service ID and compares it to a hard-coded one.
Cracking this was easy: ~Removed by moderator~
#2
Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:58 PM
Actually, there are companies selling add-ins.
for casio calculators?
#3
Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:40 PM
#4
Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:43 PM
#5
Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:34 PM
http://bigshotspc.co...troduction.html
Edited by cfxm, 22 March 2012 - 11:44 AM.
#6
Posted 16 March 2012 - 04:30 PM
But I've got some things to note:
If it's a hardcoded service id, I don't call it protected. They're just putting a unique id there to identify the person copying their software.Protected Add-ins
Why then? And who doesn't allow? It's fully fair that a company or individual charges for the effort and time they have put in something. If you write useful free software and share it with people, this shows your kindness and your generousness to give freedom to people, yeah? But if you write something and sell it, it doesn't show your cruelty and opposition to freedom.Cannot Be Allowed...
If the company was the big old CASIO, I felt less immoral cracking their software. But such small businesses can help make a wider range of applications available for calculators; so I'd rather support them (which are only individuals, imho) by paying them for their effort and time to improve the calculator.
#7
Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:20 PM
Sorry I had to remove a few characters from your post to comply with the forum rules.
But I've got some things to note:
If it's a hardcoded service id, I don't call it protected. They're just putting a unique id there to identify the person copying their software.
Why then? And who doesn't allow? It's fully fair that a company or individual charges for the effort and time they have put in something. If you write useful free software and share it with people, this shows your kindness and your generousness to give freedom to people, yeah? But if you write something and sell it, it doesn't show your cruelty and opposition to freedom.
If the company was the big old CASIO, I felt less immoral cracking their software. But such small businesses can help make a wider range of applications available for calculators; so I'd rather support them (which are only individuals, imho) by paying them for their effort and time to improve the calculator.
Selling games for calculators doesn't work, mainly because of the amount of free ones, and their profileration. In this area of the software community, it's best to just ignore it until they realize that it's not viable. However, in the desktop world...
#8
Posted 17 March 2012 - 01:08 PM
#9
Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:01 PM
I have no problem with closed source development or commercialization, but with the integrated "copy protection". This is going way too far.
All software over 300 lines should be GPLd. Unless it's in-house code. That's fine (Since it will never be reused)
#10
Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:14 PM
All software over 300 lines should be GPLd. Unless it's in-house code. That's fine (Since it will never be reused)
What are you talking about? Why should anyone GPL their code *just because* it is more than 300 lines? And how can you generalize that code more than 300 lines can never be reused?!!
#11
Posted 18 March 2012 - 05:28 PM
Richard Stallman is an idiot. Since the GPLv3 appeared, most companies have added strict no-GPL-code policies. And BSD developers are actively working to remove all GPL stuff from the base system (Actually, this is the plan for FreeBSD 10). You should read: Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source ProjectAll software over 300 lines should be GPLd. Unless it's in-house code. That's fine (Since it will never be reused)
#12
Posted 19 March 2012 - 10:56 AM
So what's wrong with the "copy protection"? It's the "normal reaction" companies do to lessen the amount of illegal copies of their software, while they already know illegal copies do exist.I have no problem with closed source development or commercialization, but with the integrated "copy protection". This is going way too far.
My understanding was that you were trying to say Pick a license, any license, correct me if I'm wrong. GPL is a very common license and some people mistake it for the entire FOSS philosophy but comparing to other open-source licenses it's not a permissive license at all.All software over 300 lines should be GPLd. Unless it's in-house code. That's fine (Since it will never be reused)
The behavior of companies handling GPL'ed code varies: some companies are removing the GPL'ed stuff because of its statements on DRM; while some are confident to continue using it, e.g MATLAB is shipped with a large number of GPL'ed libraries. CASIO says here some of its software are GPL'ed (I didn't see any).
#13
Posted 19 March 2012 - 05:39 PM
I own several different calculators and the method used wouldn't allow me to install the add-in on another one.So what's wrong with the "copy protection"? It's the "normal reaction" companies do to lessen the amount of illegal copies of their software, while they already know illegal copies do exist.
#14
Posted 07 April 2012 - 02:40 AM
#15
Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:20 AM
I'm personally not against selling software (even once I considered selling one of mine -- I haven't), but some of the calculator software developers mistake what they've written by a first class superb PC application, while it's a minimal application and they haven't even put effort into that as much as a freeware game developer does. The market is also extremely smaller.
I think when there is need AND the quality is good people will buy them. Again I think a "Please Donate" sticker on your website can never make as much money as the "Buy the software, we'll email it to you" thing.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users