Re: Controlling licensed software? [veering OT]

[Todd Finney <tf...@boygenius.com>]

At 02:59 PM 2/20/2005 -0500, Chris Puccio wrote:
>Thanks for everybody's answers, but as stated in my previous e-mail where its
>hosted is not negotiable.

Who is it "not negotiable" for?

If the client is the one demanding this, that should be a huge warning flag 
for you.

Re: Controlling licensed software? [veering OT]

[Jay Scherrer <ja...@scherrer.com>]

Personally,
I like requiring my own package at startup. In wich case also notifies 
the client of any updates. Thus reminding them to renew their 
subscription.
Jay Scherrer
On Sunday 20 February 2005 03:49 pm, Todd Finney wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 2/20/2005 -0500, Chris Puccio wrote:
> >Thanks for everybody's answers, but as stated in my previous
> > e-mail where its hosted is not negotiable.
>
> Who is it "not negotiable" for?
>
> If the client is the one demanding this, that should be a huge
> warning flag for you.

Re: Controlling licensed software? [veering OT]

[Dan Brian <da...@brians.org>]

>> Thanks for everybody's answers, but as stated in my previous e-mail 
>> where its
>> hosted is not negotiable.
>
> Who is it "not negotiable" for?
>
> If the client is the one demanding this, that should be a huge warning 
> flag for you.

I realize you already said that this wasn't negotiable, but the reason 
people keep asking is because if "controlling" that software is the top 
priority, a hosted solution is the only thing that will really allow 
it.

Note that there are other reasons to opt for hosting. The primary one 
is cost. Assuming that a motivating factor for protecting your software 
is to prevent lost revenue (which is usually the case), packaged 
software entails much more overhead by way of support and service, the 
need for user documentation, and the difficulty of providing updates 
and troubleshooting problems that arise. Not to mention the need to 
build and maintain a key distribution system to monitor for unlicensed 
copies (if you're doing site licensing). These costs usually far 
outweigh the potential loss of revenue that results from hacking, 
especially on custom contract apps, since not many people will even 
know about the app. (Is it a contract job? Because if so you'll often 
be able to charge for time spent in support. That's probably not the 
case if you chose to distribute the app encrypted; the burden will more 
often be on you to fix problems.)

I realize that's all irrelevant if this is truly not negotiable, and 
that you weren't asking for this kind of input. Just sharing some 
lessons learned from trying to do what you're doing. It's a PITA that 
you'd better have the time to build and support. Pardon the unsolicited 
input. :-)

- Dan