Online registration? - Delphi

Allen Bauer (CodeGear) wrote:

> 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).

I would not expect - or indeed want - all the source code for RAD
Studio to be released to allow me to build my own version that patched
out activation. Commercially unrealistic for you (as you illustrate
with valid examples), and not practical for me.


> However, some kind of contingency plan surrounding the
> license/activation servers are much more in the realm of
> possibilities.

Much more beneficial for both parties.

> It is up to executive staff
> to decide the best course of action.

Please: who makes these decisions? Who do we need to talk to? So far
I've tried the Product Manager, the Chief Scientist and the CEO.

> I'm but one of those voices and
> can only advise and propose solutions.

Can you share your advice/proposed solution, or must this remain
confidential?


Cheers

Ian

Allen,

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:55:26 +0100, Allen Bauer (CodeGear)
<abauer@spicedham.codegear.com> wrote:

> 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?

While giving everybody access to everything (including all the source
code) would obviously be "sufficient", I'm not sure that this is actually
"necessary" - at least from the point of due-diligence.

All I and the lawyers want is that any product for which I have a valid
licence will continue to function WITHOUT BEING DEPENDENDENT ON ANY THIRD
PARTY.

Lawyers accept that legalities may well restrict access to the source
code, but they do worry about *activation*.


And, as Ian has said "I do not understand how any 3rd-party licensing/IP
would be affected by the provision of a perpetual license that is granted
to legitimate registered users only".

--
Paul Scott
Information Management Systems
Macclesfield, UK.

Markus.Humm wrote:

> 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.

Unfortunately, Nick only said that he would 'look into' making the EOL
plans more clear to us.

That was in November 2006.

Somebody in Borland/CodeGear has decided to not publish the EOL plan.
We do not know who, and we do not know why.

Ian

"Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick.hodges@codegear.com> wrote:
>Markus.Humm wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Sorry, I don't remember making a promise to release more information --
>and I suspect that I don't remember making such a promise because,
>well, I didn't.
>

What you actually said, was, and I quote:

"I'm not sure what I can say about this, but I believe that a system is in place in the exceedingly unlikely event that the servers no longer are in business.

I'll look into having a web page that explains all of this."

Source:

Newsgroup: borland.public.delphi.non-technical
Subject: 'Activation-removal feature - how about Escrow?'
Date: Nov 22 2006

--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/cp

Chris Burrows wrote:

> What you actually said, was, and I quote:

Thanks for confirming.

--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) schrieb:
> Chris Burrows wrote:
>
>> What you actually said, was, and I quote:
>
> Thanks for confirming.
>

So this would mean: "I have looked into a web page explaining this
(more), but I failed to either see or come up with one". Right?
No good solution in my eyes...

Greetings

Markus

Markus.Humm wrote:

> So this would mean: "I have looked into a web page explaining this
> (more), but I failed to either see or come up with one". Right?

No, not right.

Part of my job is to keep my mouth shut when I'm supposed to. I don't
always do well with this, but in this case, I have.

--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges

In article <48249219$1@newsgroups.borland.com>, derbas@arachneering.com
says...
> Allen Bauer (CodeGear) wrote:
> >
> > I would also imagine that by combining CG (profitable) and Embt
> > (profitable) into a growing, /profitable/, $100M+ entity would also
> > serve to allay any of those concerns as well.
>
>
> It might TEMPORARILY alleviate them, but it does nothing to alleviate
> the concern that CodeGear is ignoring addressing (publicly) a
> well-founded, logical, customer complaint. If anything, the fact that
> they are two 'profitable' concerns would lead one to believe that the
> resources are available to PERMANENTLY alleviate such concerns.

Ah yes, but without tomes to write whenever a simple change of ownership
of a product set was effected, how would the lawyers earn their crust?