Re: Protection of intellectual property (Schema & SQL code) - Mailing list pgsql-general

I may well be wrong, but I don't think anything I proposed would make the
application any harder to use or administer for the original user. The
database would be normal, no reason not to use standard procedures to
backup and restore it. The front-end would be binary, which only means the
customer wouldn't be able to maintain and extend it themselves. That might
not be acceptable just for that reason, but it's a LONG ways from
installing a back door or remote off switch. All it would do is make it
obvious that this was a product of A Better Company through the names
used... which as I said probably wouldn't do all that much to prevent
copying, truth be told. I suppose the copy-protection on the front end
could be problematic, depending on what's used; I don't recommend anything
that would unduly hinder backups and restores either.

OTOH, there's the question of whether you're trying to market the same
product to dozens of companies, or just developing a custom app. for one
customer. If you're developing a custom app., you could just charge for the
time it takes you to develop it, let them share it with their friends, just
make sure the app has contact info so other users can hire you to enhance
or customize it for them. And at this point I'm NOT talking about just
renaming objects, this is instead of the other proposal.

Wes
P.S. I apologize for the top quoting....



Jason Earl <jason.earl@simplot.com>@xanadu.simplot.com> on 02/21/2002
05:30:44 PM

Sent by:  Jason Earl <earlj@xanadu.simplot.com>


To:   wsheldah@lexmark.com
cc:   Jason Earl <jason.earl@simplot.com>, mlq@hotmail.com (Michael),
      pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] Protection of intellectual property (Schema & SQL
      code)


wsheldah@lexmark.com writes:

<snip>

> One thing you could do just to "tag" it would be to add a prefix or
> suffix to all the tables. Say you work for "A Better Company, Inc.",
> then you might name all your tables things like abc_customer and
> abc_order, etc. The only thing that would help with is if you find
> someone else running a copy, it may be easier to prove that it's
> your schema. Of course they could change the names, but they would
> run the risk of breaking functionality if they don't do it right,
> plus you can hardcode the names in your front-end application. If
> you can compile the front-end such that you only provide them with a
> binary executable, it will be that much harder to change the
> names. And you may have better luck using other copy-protection
> mechanisms with the front end.

If you are going to get mean.  Why not simply write your application
so that it calls home every once in a while.  It can then check your
database to see if its secret serial number is valid, and if it isn't,
or if there is a duplicate it shuts itself down.

Good luck signing customers up for that sort of a deal.

> I wish you well,

I don't.  I hate applications that won't share data.  I especially
hate applications that require some sort of secret handshake to backup
properly.

As a developer I believe that developers should get paid, but as a
former systems administrator I also believe that applications that
make it hard for an admin to do his or her job are evil.  There has
*got* to be a better way to get your customers to pay you.

Jason