On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:12:03 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In article <1farb3ht3qe865aa3s1fmrv9tt300t5g8v@4ax.com>, Anton Erasmus
><nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes
>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:41:57 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <MPG.2126b1a91ce1e331989794@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
>>><sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>>>>In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>>>>Berkowitz says...
>>>>> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
>>>>> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
>>>>> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
>>>>> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
>>>>> a SW node-lock. There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
>>>>> be re-issued.
>>>>
>>>>So there was at least one. Interesting, and thanks.
>>>
>>>Most offer floating licensees like that particularly in the 32/64 bit
>>>area.
>>>IAR do it from 8-32. (Actually, somewhat unusually, they offer dongle,
>>>node-lock and floating on all their compilers)
>>>
>>>Many others node lock without a dongle BTW a dongle is an item of HW.
>>>It may not always be a lock for a license the term is used for other
>>>bits of add on HW
>>>
>>>The reason is that their software does get pirated. Even with
>>>protection there are people who try to crack it.
>>>
>>>As was mentioned in this thread when you go places you lock your car.
>>>This does not imply the people you are visiting are going to steal it
>>>but thousands of cars do get stolen every year. Even locked ones.
>>>
>>>You trust your neighbours but lock your house when you go out and at
>>>night.
>>>
>>>IT is not that they are suggesting that you might steal the compiler.
>>>Though do you have any evidence, they can easily see that you won't? I
>>>bet 90% of programmers have at least 1 item of dubious SW on their
>>>compilers... at home if not at work.
>>>
>>>Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop
>>>into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they
>>>are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why
>>>are you dubious about that? Are you suggesting this person you have
>>>never met might not be 100% honest? What an insult! :-)
>>>
>>>Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more
>>>than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is
>>>really needs counselling.
>>
>>The problem with all this protection is not that they prevent someone
>>from stealing it, they prevent the legitimate user from potentially
>>being able to use it. We have an IAR compiler for the 68HC16 which
>>have used on a number of earlier designs. We will not the 68HC16
>>again on new designs, but we do have the requirement of having to add
>>some small functionality to these old products once in a while.
>>The protection software does not run on new hardware.
>
>Then archive the PC with the compiler.
Impractical in a lot of situations. Also the computer can easily fail
even in storage. Plus adds a hell of a lot of overhead in terms of
config control.
>
>>switching. Switching to gcc turned out to be a blessing. It generated
>>MUCH better code than the very expensive commercial compiler we had
>>used.
>
>And a current commercial compiler would generate far better code than
>the GCC... You are comparing an old compiler with a current one
In this instance not so. The process of getting approval to actually
purchase the latest version of the commercial compiler went ahead.
By the time it had been approved and done, the updates had been
done in GCC. The code was compiled with the latest version of the
commercial compiler, but gcc still produced substatially better code.
>
>>To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but if
>>the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own garage
>>every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people will not use
>>it.
>
>That does not happen in reality Cars and compilers don't work like that.
>Can we have a real world analogy. Actually the Flex LM systems does
>do what you suggest. So you are happy with fFlexLM?
No FlexLM is one of the banes of my existance. Having to use more than
one product that uses slightly different versions of FlexLM to handle
the licensing is an absolute pain. Installing new software breaks the
licensing of other already installed software etc. etc.
>> If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
>>ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy a new
>>car because your model is now out of date, would you accept this ?
>
>That IS what happens,... once a car is outside its warrantee.. 1-3
>years.
No that is not so. There are many after market dealers that will
happily service and old car. AFAIK the percentage vintage cars on the
road is very high in the UK. Who services all these vehicles ? NOT the
original manufacturer, or its Agents.
>>Why are consumers to accept terms for software , which would be
>>totally unacceptable for anything else ?
>
>They don't there is no difference between SW and anything else. Other
>than the user can easily copy the SW.
Not so. The restrictions on the use of many software packages is
totaly unreasonable.
Anton Erasmus
Reply by Robert Adsett●August 11, 20072007-08-11
In article <br1s2UAzOcvGFAq2@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> In article <1farb3ht3qe865aa3s1fmrv9tt300t5g8v@4ax.com>, Anton Erasmus
> <nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes
> >The problem with all this protection is not that they prevent someone
> >from stealing it, they prevent the legitimate user from potentially
> >being able to use it. We have an IAR compiler for the 68HC16 which
> >have used on a number of earlier designs. We will not the 68HC16
> >again on new designs, but we do have the requirement of having to add
> >some small functionality to these old products once in a while.
> >The protection software does not run on new hardware.
>
> Then archive the PC with the compiler.
PC's fail too (even in storage). Not all projects can afford the
overhead of archiving a PC in a manner that it ensures it will be
reuseable. Not that it's a bad idea, especially for a project that is
essentially static but must still be capable of being maintained.
> >switching. Switching to gcc turned out to be a blessing. It generated
> >MUCH better code than the very expensive commercial compiler we had
> >used.
>
> And a current commercial compiler would generate far better code than
> the GCC... You are comparing an old compiler with a current one
>
>
> >To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but if
> >the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own garage
> >every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people will not use
> >it.
>
> That does not happen in reality Cars and compilers don't work like that.
Cars don't. A number of commercial compilers certainly do. I think
that was his point.
Physical dongles are more like a access card that must be inserted into
the window of the garage for the car to start. And garages are in a
constant state of change so that new garages may not support old window
frames.
> Can we have a real world analogy. Actually the Flex LM systems does
> do what you suggest. So you are happy with fFlexLM?
>
> > If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
> >ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy a new
> >car because your model is now out of date, would you accept this ?
>
> That IS what happens,... once a car is outside its warrantee.. 1-3
> years.
You aren't allowed to drive your car once the warrantee expires?
>
> >Why are consumers to accept terms for software , which would be
> >totally unacceptable for anything else ?
>
> They don't there is no difference between SW and anything else. Other
> than the user can easily copy the SW.
Software cannot be felt, tasted or smelled. I'm sure there are more
differences.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by Robert Adsett●August 11, 20072007-08-11
In article <1farb3ht3qe865aa3s1fmrv9tt300t5g8v@4ax.com>, Anton Erasmus
says...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:41:57 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop
> >into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they
> >are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why
> >are you dubious about that? Are you suggesting this person you have
> >never met might not be 100% honest? What an insult! :-)
> >
> >Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more
> >than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is
> >really needs counselling.
Insults don't have to be personally directed to be felt. It simply
becomes part of a climate of mistrust. I don't know what the answer to
piracy is but I'm not convinced copy protection (HW or SW) is it.
> The problem with all this protection is not that they prevent someone
> from stealing it, they prevent the legitimate user from potentially
> being able to use it. We have an IAR compiler for the 68HC16 which
> have used on a number of earlier designs. We will not the 68HC16
> again on new designs, but we do have the requirement of having to add
> some small functionality to these old products once in a while.
> The protection software does not run on new hardware. IAR's response
> is that they can offer an upgrade. This is not acceptable. We
> potentially might have to change some code. It can have different
> bugs, and often the changes are laterally a few lines of code. This
> sort of problem becomes a nightmare when companies are bought out, or
> goes
> under. We have actually switched to gcc on some older 68k projects,
> because the very expensive 68k compilers we bought is totally
> unusable.
> The company we bought it from lost the software to generate an
> authenticate code that is required to run it on a new hard drive. We
> had the choice of either reverse engineer the protection code, or
> switching. Switching to gcc turned out to be a blessing. It generated
> MUCH better code than the very expensive commercial compiler we had
> used.
> To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but if
> the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own garage
> every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people will not use
> it. If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
> ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy a new
> car because your model is now out of date, would you accept this ?
And of course you cannot change your garage without approval from the
automobile manufacturing company. If they no longer provide it for the
vehicle then well that's just too bad.
This really is the nub of the problem. What actually do you buy when
you purchase SW? Is it a tool or a service? Do you have the right to
use it as long as you wish? Or only as long as the provider deigns? I
lean toward the tool definition myself, understandably some vendors lean
more towards a service model. Only a very few have gone as far as
requiring regular payments to keep a program running (none that I know
of in embedded, but I've heard tales from other fields).
> Why are consumers to accept terms for software , which would be
> totally unacceptable for anything else ?
I had heard that the recording industry tried to impose similar
restrictions in the early days but ran afoul of the reality of not being
able to enforce the terms. They have tried again with DRM and we've yet
to see how that plays out.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by CBFalconer●August 11, 20072007-08-11
Chris Hills wrote:
> Anton Erasmus <nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes
>
... snip ...
>
>> To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but
>> if the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own
>> garage every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people
>> will not use it.
>
> That does not happen in reality Cars and compilers don't work like
> that. Can we have a real world analogy. Actually the Flex LM
> systems does do what you suggest. So you are happy with fFlexLM?
>
>> If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
>> ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy
>> a newcar because your model is now out of date, would you accept
>> this ?
>
> That IS what happens,... once a car is outside its warrantee..
> 1-3 years.
You must be dreaming. My car is modern (for me) and 8 years old.
The only reason I don't have a 19 year old backup is that a major
relocation made that awkward, and unnecessary. And I have reached
the age where I no longer do my own repairs. I think I am quite
typical.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by Chris Hills●August 11, 20072007-08-11
In article <1farb3ht3qe865aa3s1fmrv9tt300t5g8v@4ax.com>, Anton Erasmus
<nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:41:57 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <MPG.2126b1a91ce1e331989794@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
>><sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>>>In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>>>Berkowitz says...
>>>> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
>>>> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>>>>
>>>> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
>>>> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>>>>
>>>> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
>>>> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
>>>> a SW node-lock. There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
>>>> be re-issued.
>>>
>>>So there was at least one. Interesting, and thanks.
>>
>>Most offer floating licensees like that particularly in the 32/64 bit
>>area.
>>IAR do it from 8-32. (Actually, somewhat unusually, they offer dongle,
>>node-lock and floating on all their compilers)
>>
>>Many others node lock without a dongle BTW a dongle is an item of HW.
>>It may not always be a lock for a license the term is used for other
>>bits of add on HW
>>
>>The reason is that their software does get pirated. Even with
>>protection there are people who try to crack it.
>>
>>As was mentioned in this thread when you go places you lock your car.
>>This does not imply the people you are visiting are going to steal it
>>but thousands of cars do get stolen every year. Even locked ones.
>>
>>You trust your neighbours but lock your house when you go out and at
>>night.
>>
>>IT is not that they are suggesting that you might steal the compiler.
>>Though do you have any evidence, they can easily see that you won't? I
>>bet 90% of programmers have at least 1 item of dubious SW on their
>>compilers... at home if not at work.
>>
>>Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop
>>into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they
>>are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why
>>are you dubious about that? Are you suggesting this person you have
>>never met might not be 100% honest? What an insult! :-)
>>
>>Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more
>>than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is
>>really needs counselling.
>
>The problem with all this protection is not that they prevent someone
>from stealing it, they prevent the legitimate user from potentially
>being able to use it. We have an IAR compiler for the 68HC16 which
>have used on a number of earlier designs. We will not the 68HC16
>again on new designs, but we do have the requirement of having to add
>some small functionality to these old products once in a while.
>The protection software does not run on new hardware.
Then archive the PC with the compiler.
>switching. Switching to gcc turned out to be a blessing. It generated
>MUCH better code than the very expensive commercial compiler we had
>used.
And a current commercial compiler would generate far better code than
the GCC... You are comparing an old compiler with a current one
>To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but if
>the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own garage
>every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people will not use
>it.
That does not happen in reality Cars and compilers don't work like that.
Can we have a real world analogy. Actually the Flex LM systems does
do what you suggest. So you are happy with fFlexLM?
> If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
>ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy a new
>car because your model is now out of date, would you accept this ?
That IS what happens,... once a car is outside its warrantee.. 1-3
years.
>Why are consumers to accept terms for software , which would be
>totally unacceptable for anything else ?
They don't there is no difference between SW and anything else. Other
than the user can easily copy the SW.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by Anton Erasmus●August 11, 20072007-08-11
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:41:57 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In article <MPG.2126b1a91ce1e331989794@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
><sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>>In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>>Berkowitz says...
>>> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
>>> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>>>
>>> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
>>> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>>>
>>> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
>>> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
>>> a SW node-lock. There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
>>> be re-issued.
>>
>>So there was at least one. Interesting, and thanks.
>
>Most offer floating licensees like that particularly in the 32/64 bit
>area.
>IAR do it from 8-32. (Actually, somewhat unusually, they offer dongle,
>node-lock and floating on all their compilers)
>
>Many others node lock without a dongle BTW a dongle is an item of HW.
>It may not always be a lock for a license the term is used for other
>bits of add on HW
>
>The reason is that their software does get pirated. Even with
>protection there are people who try to crack it.
>
>As was mentioned in this thread when you go places you lock your car.
>This does not imply the people you are visiting are going to steal it
>but thousands of cars do get stolen every year. Even locked ones.
>
>You trust your neighbours but lock your house when you go out and at
>night.
>
>IT is not that they are suggesting that you might steal the compiler.
>Though do you have any evidence, they can easily see that you won't? I
>bet 90% of programmers have at least 1 item of dubious SW on their
>compilers... at home if not at work.
>
>Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop
>into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they
>are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why
>are you dubious about that? Are you suggesting this person you have
>never met might not be 100% honest? What an insult! :-)
>
>Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more
>than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is
>really needs counselling.
The problem with all this protection is not that they prevent someone
from stealing it, they prevent the legitimate user from potentially
being able to use it. We have an IAR compiler for the 68HC16 which
have used on a number of earlier designs. We will not the 68HC16
again on new designs, but we do have the requirement of having to add
some small functionality to these old products once in a while.
The protection software does not run on new hardware. IAR's response
is that they can offer an upgrade. This is not acceptable. We
potentially might have to change some code. It can have different
bugs, and often the changes are laterally a few lines of code. This
sort of problem becomes a nightmare when companies are bought out, or
goes
under. We have actually switched to gcc on some older 68k projects,
because the very expensive 68k compilers we bought is totally
unusable.
The company we bought it from lost the software to generate an
authenticate code that is required to run it on a new hard drive. We
had the choice of either reverse engineer the protection code, or
switching. Switching to gcc turned out to be a blessing. It generated
MUCH better code than the very expensive commercial compiler we had
used.
To get back to you car analogy. Yes, one does lock one's car, but if
the car had some sensor to check that you parked in your own garage
every 48hours, or it would refuse to start, then people will not use
it. If one had problems with such a system after a year or two of
ownership, and the car manufacturer told you that you had to buy a new
car because your model is now out of date, would you accept this ?
Why are consumers to accept terms for software , which would be
totally unacceptable for anything else ?
Anton
Erasmus
Reply by Chris Hills●August 11, 20072007-08-11
In article <MPG.2126b1a91ce1e331989794@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett
<sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
>In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
>Berkowitz says...
>> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
>> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>>
>> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
>> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>>
>> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
>> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
>> a SW node-lock. There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
>> be re-issued.
>
>So there was at least one. Interesting, and thanks.
Most offer floating licensees like that particularly in the 32/64 bit
area.
IAR do it from 8-32. (Actually, somewhat unusually, they offer dongle,
node-lock and floating on all their compilers)
Many others node lock without a dongle BTW a dongle is an item of HW.
It may not always be a lock for a license the term is used for other
bits of add on HW
The reason is that their software does get pirated. Even with
protection there are people who try to crack it.
As was mentioned in this thread when you go places you lock your car.
This does not imply the people you are visiting are going to steal it
but thousands of cars do get stolen every year. Even locked ones.
You trust your neighbours but lock your house when you go out and at
night.
IT is not that they are suggesting that you might steal the compiler.
Though do you have any evidence, they can easily see that you won't? I
bet 90% of programmers have at least 1 item of dubious SW on their
compilers... at home if not at work.
Those of you screaming "it is an insult" I suggest you take your laptop
into the nearest city and ask the first stranger you see who says they
are honest to look after it for 24 hours and bring it back.... Now why
are you dubious about that? Are you suggesting this person you have
never met might not be 100% honest? What an insult! :-)
Compiler companies don't know who the good and bad guys are any more
than you do so SW protection is not personal. Anyone who thinks it is
really needs counselling.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by Robert Adsett●August 10, 20072007-08-10
In article <MPG.2125a948a84fc6df98987b@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Gene S.
Berkowitz says...
> In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
> @aeolusdevelopment.com says...
>
> > Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
> > charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
>
> Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
> out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
> a SW node-lock. There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
> be re-issued.
So there was at least one. Interesting, and thanks.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by Gene S. Berkowitz●August 10, 20072007-08-10
In article <MPG.2120047535e7474c98978d@free.teranews.com>, sub2
@aeolusdevelopment.com says...
> Interesting, I don't remember ever seing any one use FlexLm and not
> charge more for not being locked to a partuclar machine.
Diab Data, before they got bought by Integrated Systems, who was bought
out by Wind River, used to offer floating licenses for the same price as
a SW node-lock. There was a 5-minute delay before a given license could
be re-issued.
--Gene
Reply by David Brown●August 6, 20072007-08-06
John Devereux wrote:
> Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:
>
>> On 2007-08-04, Robert Adsett <sub2@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
>>
>> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>> |"In article <eb0ti.94$1G1.36@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle says... |
>> |> Chris, it's not just the problems with dongles and flexlm etc that |
>> |> irritates. It's the business relationship where i am being asked to |
>> |> shell out thousands and put my trust in the vendor to provide timely and |
>> |> accurate support, while at the same time, the dongles etc tell me that |
>> |> they don't trust me. |
>> | |
>> |Absolutely." |
>> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>
>> Sheesh, they do not trust everybody. They are not necessarily saying
>> that you will steal, but somebody would steal. You are entitled to
>> resent dongles (and complaints such as a dongle might malfunction or
>> become lost are valid), but being insulted that all customers are
>> given a dongle each is something I deem to be an overreaction. For
>> example, a landlord from who I rented accommodation and shared a yard
>> with was insulted that I locked a vehicle because he would not steal
>> it. If I ever visit you, please do not think that I necessarily
>> suspect that you will steal my vehicle if I lock it. Someone else
>> could steal it otherwise. Similarly, any time I have taken an opaque
>> bag into a shop and a staffmember of the shop requested to look into
>> the bag, I was not being accused of stealing and I was not insulted:
>> checking whether I stole something was a perfectly legitimate goal of
>> the shop's staff. Similarly in other shops, entering with one's own
>> bags is forbidden: this again is not an accusation that everyone is a
>> thief, but it might prevent some thefts. I may find it inconvenient
>> that I may not enter a particular shop with a bag of my own, but just
>> as a dongle may be inconvenient, it is not necessarily enough for me
>> to be insulted and invoke a boycott.
>
> It's more like having your bag searched, then being falsely arrested
> and imprisoned for 3 days, being beaten around the head a few times...
>
> Then when they release you they keep the bag!
>
> (That's how long I spent trying to get my dongle-protected IAR
> software working again, before abandoning the effort. I can no longer
> compile my own code.)
>
And how many people actually think it is reasonable for shop staff to
insist on searching your bag? Personally, I'd consider it totally out
of the question - the shop staff can insist you leave the premises
(without seeing inside your bag), or they can call the police and
persuade them that they suspect a crime is in progress.
With software locks, you've entered into a license agreement of some
kind, which is a legal contract, and thus the supplier *may* have
certain other rights.