waldo kitty wrote:
Of course, an even safer way would be to leave the executable alone
and to put
an early check in the startup code that a subsidiary key file existed,
and for
that key to include something that identified the machine or site on
which the
program was entitled to run.
true... but as i recall, one of the goals of this capability was to not
have extra files laying about... i remember the days of dongles and
never liked them at all...
Oh yes. And all those copy-protection systems that transferred a token
from a floppy to a file on disc.
But if the choice was between having an extra file or patching the
executable, and if the patched executable failed on 5% of customer
systems due to an OS or anti-virus check, I'd settle for the extra file
and count myself lucky.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
