Re: This site produces a demo version that says it is out of date can't load

Jason Williams (streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:33:51 -0600 (CST)


On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Wayne Fisher wrote:
> Pardon me for putting more of my 2 cents in, but for someone to suggest
> that someone continue to use the demo version of the software is quite
> disturbing to me

I didn't save the original article about this...but I believe the guy was
wanting to try out a demo of 2.1.2 and he couldn't get it to work because
it had a hard-coded drop dead date in it. Maybe I misunderstood him
though.

> companies such as White Pine work very hard on
> their software, and for people to download and use just demos, or find
> cracks and hacks so that they do not have to pay for the software, is
> reprehensible.

True..companies should get rewarded for what they do without people
ripping them off. But at the same time, there's a big business for cracks
and hacks...it's something all software developers have to deal with.

> If you want companies like White Pine to continue to "pump out" quality
> products, show your support and buy the damn software...

The assumption there is that paid programmers produce quality software.
Check out the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/) for another
approach. The GNU project is quite successful..It allows people to adapt
software to their needs and makes it much more useful.

This is sort of like White Pine providing an API for programmers to extend
what CU-SeeMe does (like GeekTalk). The FSF takes it quite a bit farther
though. But quality software can indeed be produced and advanced without
mention of money.

I wasn't condoning violating the license restrictions of CU-SeeMe...I
merely stated that 2.1.2 works fine with a serial number but not as a
demo.

> If you don't want to legally buy the software, don't use it and find a
> freeware program that does the same thing....

It's only a matter of time before freeware versions come out that support
color (MJPEG, H.263). A few already have. OS/2 version supports it as
does the Linux port. 99% of the people I know who use the White Pine
version (be it 3.X or 2.X) all use it for one reason only: color support.
Given a freeware alternative to it, they'd happily switch.

Let's hope by the time color eventually does get to the freeware version
White Pine has enough corporate business takers to balance out the loss of
home users that have found a freeware alternative.

With the source code to the Cornell version available for a small
licensing fee, anyone can modify CU-SeeMe to their liking. I know at
least one person that has improved the Cornell Mac version quite a bit.

> As someone in the software industry, I am appalled at your
> suggestions....

I didn't suggest anything that I know of...If you can indeed still buy 2.1
from White Pine, then using 2.1.2 with the same serial number shouldn't be
illegal.

I believe White Pine has switched serial numbers twice..
2.0 -> 2.1 required a different serial number.
2.1 -> 3.0 required a different serial number.

--
streak@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |
streak@mail.utexas.edu       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |
streak@cs.utexas.edu         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~streak/ **************|