Online registration? - Delphi

Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
>
> That info wasn't available when I started the thread. I think the question
> was legitimate.
>

True. But it -> was <- available before you wrote the post that started
out "Simple...".

And I don't doubt the legitimacy of the question, actually. Just the
"tone" of the question as worded. It just seemed to match a lot of the
other threads that were really over the top with FUD and seemed to be
coming from people who appeared have an agenda. Some are even talking
criminal conspiracy for crying out loud.

But since CodeGear was hived off into a wholly owned subsidiary
something like 2 years ago, with the stated purpose of selling it off,
and since nobody spends $30 million without doing a bit of research, I
would have thought that it would be clear that this kind issue is really
a rather trivial issue to fix.

We all know that Borland specifically turned over control of all that
stuff to CodeGear long ago and it therefore goes with CodeGear to
Embarcadero. If there is a hard coded domain name hassle then CodeGear
will have to fix it somehow, either get Borland to let them keep using
their domain, or issue a patch to the registration module (it isn't like
that hasn't been done before after all).

Like I said: it is not rocket science; the registration requests to
borland.com are already being forwarded to CodeGear. It costs no-one
anything to keep it going like that, unless Borland decides they can
charge 'rent' or something.

Bruce McGee wrote:

> I personally don't think it's an issue and wouldn't bother to ask
> except that I have one (and only one) customer who wants to know about
> any contingency plan. Answer that question for them officially and
> they're happy.

Your mileage definitely varies ;-)

Try selling a company with a key product that relies on a 3rd party for
it's continued development; the lawyers crawl all over things like this
as an excuse to write warranty clauses, and add retention amounts to a
deal.

I've spent too many days locked in rooms with lawyers picking holes in
every aspect of a business

Cheers

Ian

Allen Bauer (CodeGear) wrote:

> CodeGear has full control over the servers and has so since early on
> in the formation of the CodeGear group within Borland.

Excellent - as long as they cannot interfere with your use of any
domain names involved.

> I cannot
> comment on the nature of the agreement any further than that.

I understand, and would not ask you to.


> > You of all people should understand that "it shouldn't be a problem"
> > cuts NO ice with lawyers engaged in a due-diligence exercise. Our
> > own product's long-term security is compromised by your lack of a
> > stated policy in this area.


> How is this handled by other tool vendors? Does MS have a stated
> policy of what will happen should thier activation servers go dark?

Unfortunately for you, MS get to play by different rules. Lawyers are
willing to accept the continued existence of MS as a given. Their tools
are not subject to the same rules as yours, IME.

> Adobe? I'm not trying to be obtuse or combative, but rather want to
> get some perspective on this. It would be interesting to see their
> stated policies on this.

The only perspective that I can provide is as a businessman faced with
potential legal difficulties with the sale of a business worth several
millions.


My policy is to NOT use tools or components from any vendor that
inflict these restrictions on me. This is the main reason I avoided
D2005 upwards. There has been a recent change: the only reason I now
allow us to use RAD Studio is that I have moved our development to
Virtual Machines: we have a development VM that contains an activated
copy of RAD Studio, and this will keep working regardless of any
problems at Codegear.

We can transfer this VM between machines if necessary. Of course, this
would allow us to deploy one licensed copy of RAD Studio all around my
company: but we don't.


> Real-world examples of this from other
> vendors with similar systems would go a long way to helping convince
> the right people.

Who are "the right people", if not you? Jim Douglas told me that he had
started an internal debate on this issue - in April 07. I've yet to see
any result from that. Who are the people to engage on this subject?

I understand wanting to use other companies as a benchmark, but I must
say that this seems a bit timid to me. Strong companies - invariably
with strong leaders - know their market + customer base, and set their
commercial and technical policies accordingly. The Borland I grew up
with did not play catch-up in this fashion.

<wonders aloud>
How many of the thankfully-departed Borland execs of the recent past
would have been totally opposed to the No-Nonsense license and the
original Turbo pricing strategy?
</wonders aloud>


> > I hope that your recent experiences of this type of exercise make
> > you more understanding of the real-world problems that activation
> > can cause when selling a business.
>
> We are very understanding of the issues. We also cannot glibly commit
> to something that puts us into an untennable position. It helps noone.

I have no desire for a glib commitment, or for your position to be
untenable. I just want a policy statement that I can refer to that
provides me security of possession for tools that I have purchased.

> Also, for something like this, it would be irresponsible of me to even
> hint at any kind of commitment. All I can say is that we're very
> aware of the concerns and will address them at the appropriate time.

I (really) do not understand the reluctance (as an organisation) to
address this issue. The only concern I can see is that people may
interpret any product EOL policy as an admission that the product is
terminal, rather than as a necessary safeguard for users. Is this the
big problem? Surely this could be marketed as a positive, rather than a
negative?

The appropriate time was when you introduced this <censored> technology
in the first place. You had a chance when you announced Devco, and
again when you were spun out as CodeGear. You now have the chance to
use the Embarcadero merger as a time to demonstrate a new focus on
customers.

Is it so hard to commit to releasing a personal activation server /
golden license file / some other magic bullet in the event of any
business event that results in the shutting down of the activation
servers?

At the least, I would like to thank you for even discussing the subject
with me.

Good luck with the new venture. May your future encounters with the
lawyers be short ones ;-)

Regards

Ian

Allen Bauer (CodeGear) wrote:

> ... and will address them at the appropriate time.

Not a stab at you, Allan, but this sentence made me remember the
following from an old LP with The Muppet Show:

Miss Piggy: "Kermiie, when do *I* get to sing?"

Kermit: "I don't have time right now"

Miss Piggy (with a very 'persuasive' voice): "MAKE TIME!!!"

--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm

Anders Isaksson wrote:

> Allen Bauer (CodeGear) wrote:
>
> > ... and will address them at the appropriate time.
>
> Not a stab at you, Allan, but this sentence made me remember the
> following from an old LP with The Muppet Show:
>
> Miss Piggy: "Kermiie, when do I get to sing?"
>
> Kermit: "I don't have time right now"
>
> Miss Piggy (with a very 'persuasive' voice): "MAKE TIME!!!"

If everything is the highest priority, then nothing is.

--
Allen Bauer
CodeGear
Chief Scientist
http://blogs.borland.com/abauer

IanH wrote:

> Your mileage definitely varies ;-)

Then the guys who make the decisions should hear both situations, right?


> I've spent too many days locked in rooms with lawyers picking holes in
> every aspect of a business

You have my sympathies.

--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software

"IanH" <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>Is it so hard to commit to releasing a personal activation server
>/golden license file / some other magic bullet in the event of
>any business event that results in the shutting down of the
>activation servers?
>

There is an activation server that you can use now with a network licensed copy of Delphi. Please contact sails for more info.

regards
Yannis.

Hello,

we bought something from another firm (they developped it for us but are
delivering/manufacturing it as well). When they delivered the first
samples we got some CDs with the plans etc. which are sealed and only to
be opened by us in the hopefully never occuring case should the go bancrupt.

And: afaik it was promised already a year ago to release more/enough
details about your escrow plans. Ok, afaik Nick proposed that, but a
year should be enough to make this clear to any lawyer.

Greetings

Markus

Markus.Humm wrote:

> Hello,
>
> we bought something from another firm (they developped it for us but
> are delivering/manufacturing it as well). When they delivered the
> first samples we got some CDs with the plans etc. which are sealed
> and only to be opened by us in the hopefully never occuring case
> should the go bancrupt.

I can guarantee that we will not "escrow" any product source code.
*Very* few companies do that, and the ones that do are either doing
"spec" or contract work (as in your case), or are much smaller (<$1M).

However, some kind of contingency plan surrounding the
license/activation servers are much more in the realm of possibilities.
I *do* know that we have internal contingency/disaster recovery plans,
which are very similar. It is up to executive staff to decide the best
course of action. I'm but one of those voices and can only advise and
propose solutions.

> And: afaik it was promised already a year ago to release more/enough
> details about your escrow plans. Ok, afaik Nick proposed that, but a
> year should be enough to make this clear to any lawyer.

I don't recall any specific promises, and if some were made, I don't
know what to say. Sorry? I do know it has been discussed at length in
the past and there were several proposals for potential solutions. I
know, personally, that one should never promise things like this until
there is internal alignment on the issue. A promise to discuss and
present the problem and proposed solutions is one thing, but a promise
to come back with a specific solution is not a very tennable position.

Consider this: What if we didn't own *all* the code as part of the
product and only license it? We cannot go start making escrow
arrangements unilaterally without also getting agreements from the
owners of the code. And what if they don't agree?

For instance, this is the case today. The Delphi/C++ products ship
modified/derived versions of the Windows headers. We have a license
with MS that allows us to redistribute these files and derivatives of
these files. However, we cannot "escrow" these files since we don't
really own them.

--
Allen Bauer
CodeGear
Chief Scientist
http://blogs.borland.com/abauer