Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Fruit 2.2 and copy protection of Chess Programs

Author: Ryan B.

Date: 18:05:23 10/28/05

Go up one level in this thread


On October 28, 2005 at 20:51:30, Roger Brown wrote:

>On October 28, 2005 at 18:49:21, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On October 28, 2005 at 18:21:37, Jake Sisko wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is Fruit 2.2 copy protection scheme the trend of the Future? I hear that there
>>>is not one cracked version of the program. Perhaps Other companies will adopt
>>>the same practices of Fruit to ensure that programmers actually get paid for
>>>there work? Seems like a good ideal to me!
>>
>>1)How do you know that there are not cracked version of fruit?
>>I think that you never can know something like that and you may know only the
>>opposite.
>>The best that you can say is that you did not find a cracked version of fruit.
>>
>>2)I thought first that it is a good idea but I changed my mind about it after
>>reading a lot of complaints in this forum and after understanding that there is
>>probably no copy protection that cannot be cracked by crackers and I think that
>>the fact that the copy proterction of fruit cannot be cracked by most people(and
>>maybe by most crackers) does not help much because one cracker may share fruit
>>with a lot of people.
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>
>Hello Uri,
>
>Do you read your posts BEFORE you post them?
>
>I promised to leave your rather strange posts alone but you are saying a number
>of things here that are making me curious.
>
>(a)  Why are you inferring that the poster was searching for cracked versions of
>Fruit?
>
>(b)  I cannot understand how the fact that some thief somewhere is working on
>cracking Fruit makes the copy protection of Fruit a bad idea.
>
>(c)  One might infer that your statement about the likely procedures of hackers
>could be restated (using your own logic of course) as:
>
>One cannot say that hackers may do or not do this or that, one can only say that
>one has received cracked programs in this or that way.  I am sure that you have
>not received same but you do see that your language leaves the poster's
>integrity up for debate.
>
>Of course, you may complain about this post.
>
>Later.


If someone comes to a programers forum and talks about a programs copy
protection not being cracked it seems resonable that some may question their
intent.



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.