How to stop library mde being reused

[Jeff]

Hi

I have a library mde that is used with some customer databases and I found
out that another developer discovered it while doing some maintenance work
on an old database for the same customer and has copied it to use with her
databases. Naturally, I was not impressed and that story continues. It was
not the customers fault.

I assume she took a copy of the original code from the customers database
and is working out how to use the library mde from that. For this customer
the database is supplied with all source code and not compiled into an mde.

There are also a few other situations where I suspect the mde may be getting
reused without my permission.

Basically, the mde contains a whole bunch of functions I have developed over
the years and am using it more and more in systems developed for clients and
had not really worried about it being knocked off, so to speak, until now.

After this little incident I have given this some thought.

I want to allow some customers to reuse the library with databases they put
together, but stop this rip off happening again.

I have considered a few options, but am not really that happy with any at
this stage.

Any suggestions on a reasonably simple method of stopping, or at least
limiting, this from happening again would be appreciated.

Jeff

[Arno R]

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> schreef in bericht news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

Mmm...that may actually work is some situations. It would be a bit of a pain
but I could create a unique version of the library to suit a clients
workgroup. In that way they can create and work on databases as long as they
remain within that workgroup.

Thanks

Just curious...
I wonder what might be wrong with my suggestion of checking the ldb-file?
Would this not work in your situation? Or am I just missing the obvious here??
It is very unlikely that another developer uses the *very same name* for an app, or ??
Also: My customers are *not* renaming the application.mdb ; this would indeed be a problem though...

But this method (checking the existance of the ldb-file that Access 'always' creates) is very easy IMO.
I guess it is hard to be detected, and it is *not* to be detected by checking the code in the delivered mdb.

I was thinking of implementing this myself with a codelib.mde I delivered recently.
Just curious about any other drawbacks of protecting the code this way.

Arno R

[Jeff]

I thought of having a system that creates a code from a few database
specific items, such as database filename, start-up form name, things that
are not computer specific. Then having the client tell me these so I could
generate a code to give them to include in their front-end as a constant.
The library would know how to decode this and check that the database had
those properties.

This would mean that each new database they created with the library meant
they would have to get a code from me, but only have to do it once. Not too
bad, and would mean that to steal the library and use it elsewhere would
mean having a front-end with all the same properties. If the filename was
specific this would at least seem a bit strange to clients. Especially if
the front-end was called 'ABCCompany.mdb ' and the client was 'XYZCompany'.
Having the same start-up form in each would not be so strange though. So my
dilemma was coming up with enough database properties that really mattered.

Other than that I thought this may be a good solution. And I don't think it
unacceptable to have the client request a code for each new database
application the develop.

Jeff

"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairin c.com> wrote in message
news:3c******** *************** *******@athenet .net...

Create a list of all your applications in the library, then have an
initialization function check the database properties of your front end.
It
would be hard for a 3rd party to know what your library is looking for. If
they figured it out they would have to duplicate your application name.

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> wrote in message
news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

Hi

I have a library mde that is used with some customer databases and I
found
out that another developer discovered it while doing some maintenance
work
on an old database for the same customer and has copied it to use with
her
databases. Naturally, I was not impressed and that story continues. It
was
not the customers fault.

I assume she took a copy of the original code from the customers database
and is working out how to use the library mde from that. For this
customer
the database is supplied with all source code and not compiled into an

mde.

There are also a few other situations where I suspect the mde may be

getting

reused without my permission.

Basically, the mde contains a whole bunch of functions I have developed

over

the years and am using it more and more in systems developed for clients

and

had not really worried about it being knocked off, so to speak, until
now.

After this little incident I have given this some thought.

I want to allow some customers to reuse the library with databases they

put

together, but stop this rip off happening again.

I have considered a few options, but am not really that happy with any at
this stage.

Any suggestions on a reasonably simple method of stopping, or at least
limiting, this from happening again would be appreciated.

Jeff

[Jeff]

Arno

Check my response to Rom Paii. I had considered a method similar to this. In
my version I had a code included in the front-end as a constant that was
things that are database specific encoded in some way. It thought of using
the database filename, maybe start-up form name etc. The client would supply
me with these and I would encode it. They would then include that in their
front-end and the library would know how to decode it and check the file
properties.

The client would not know how it was encoded, neither would the person
ripping it off. They would have to use the same filename etc with all the
databases they created. If I insisted that the filename was specific to the
company, such as 'ABCComnpany.md b' then reusing that for other clients would
surely make the client suspicious and ask questions.

Not foolproof, but maybe a good deterrent.

Jeff

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:43******** *************** @text.nova.plan et.nl...

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

Mmm...that may actually work is some situations. It would be a bit of a
pain
but I could create a unique version of the library to suit a clients
workgroup. In that way they can create and work on databases as long as
they
remain within that workgroup.

Thanks

Just curious...
I wonder what might be wrong with my suggestion of checking the ldb-file?
Would this not work in your situation? Or am I just missing the obvious
here??
It is very unlikely that another developer uses the *very same name* for an
app, or ??
Also: My customers are *not* renaming the application.mdb ; this would indeed
be a problem though...

But this method (checking the existance of the ldb-file that Access 'always'
creates) is very easy IMO.
I guess it is hard to be detected, and it is *not* to be detected by
checking the code in the delivered mdb.

I was thinking of implementing this myself with a codelib.mde I delivered
recently.
Just curious about any other drawbacks of protecting the code this way.

Arno R

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:42:21 +1000, "Jeff"
<je************ @asken.com.au> wrote:

In the USA we have a "small claims" process that covers cases up to
US$5000 and can be handled without an attorney. Perhaps your country
has a similar process?

-Tom.

Its just that legal action is so expensive, and I would doubt it was worth
it.

Talking to the client is reasonable, and I have done this, but have not
expressed a view that it is their responsibility. Don't think that would go
down well with one in particular.

Jeff

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:Xn******* *************** ************@12 7.0.0.1...

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> wrote in
news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au :

That may work if they only had an MDE front-end. But a lot of
clients have the uncompiled MDB file for the front-end. That would
of course have the code to so this and therefore easily
duplicated.

That is the main problem. With a MDB front-end anything I add to
it is open to the world.

Well, the horse is also already out of the barn. It would work only
if she got hold of the new version of the library with these outside
dependencies.

You have to talk to her and ask her to do the right thing.

Failing that, talk to the client that employees both of you and ask
them to pressure her to do the right thing.

Failing that, see a lawyer and threaten her with legal action.

Failing that, take legal action. She can't possibly win, though she
may have nothing whatsoever to collect in damages.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:32:46 +1000, "Jeff"
<je************ @asken.com.au> wrote:

I wasn't sure how far you wanted to take this, but yes, that's a good
solution which I have used several times.
You can use this same solution to provide a demo mode that expires
after n days, unless the user calls you and gets a code to either make
it legal, or extend the demo for another 30 days.

-Tom.

I thought of having a system that creates a code from a few database
specific items, such as database filename, start-up form name, things that
are not computer specific. Then having the client tell me these so I could
generate a code to give them to include in their front-end as a constant.
The library would know how to decode this and check that the database had
those properties.

This would mean that each new database they created with the library meant
they would have to get a code from me, but only have to do it once. Not too
bad, and would mean that to steal the library and use it elsewhere would
mean having a front-end with all the same properties. If the filename was
specific this would at least seem a bit strange to clients. Especially if
the front-end was called 'ABCCompany.mdb ' and the client was 'XYZCompany'.
Having the same start-up form in each would not be so strange though. So my
dilemma was coming up with enough database properties that really mattered.

Other than that I thought this may be a good solution. And I don't think it
unacceptable to have the client request a code for each new database
application the develop.

Jeff

"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairin c.com> wrote in message
news:3c******* *************** ********@athene t.net...

Create a list of all your applications in the library, then have an
initialization function check the database properties of your front end.
It
would be hard for a 3rd party to know what your library is looking for. If
they figured it out they would have to duplicate your application name.

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> wrote in message
news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

Hi

I have a library mde that is used with some customer databases and I
found
out that another developer discovered it while doing some maintenance
work
on an old database for the same customer and has copied it to use with
her
databases. Naturally, I was not impressed and that story continues. It
was
not the customers fault.

I assume she took a copy of the original code from the customers database
and is working out how to use the library mde from that. For this
customer
the database is supplied with all source code and not compiled into an

mde.

There are also a few other situations where I suspect the mde may be

getting

reused without my permission.

Basically, the mde contains a whole bunch of functions I have developed

over

the years and am using it more and more in systems developed for clients

and

had not really worried about it being knocked off, so to speak, until
now.

After this little incident I have given this some thought.

I want to allow some customers to reuse the library with databases they

put

together, but stop this rip off happening again.

I have considered a few options, but am not really that happy with any at
this stage.

Any suggestions on a reasonably simple method of stopping, or at least
limiting, this from happening again would be appreciated.

Jeff

[David W. Fenton]

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> wrote in
news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au :

Its just that legal action is so expensive, and I would doubt it
was worth it.

The threat of legal action may be sufficient, precisely because, as
you say "legal action is so expensive."

But you do have to be willing to follow through on it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[David W. Fenton]

"Jeff" <je************ @asken.com.au> wrote in
news:43******** *************** @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au :

Mmm...that may actually work is some situations. It would be a bit
of a pain but I could create a unique version of the library to
suit a clients workgroup. In that way they can create and work on
databases as long as they remain within that workgroup.

Anyone smart enough to steal the library is probably going to be
smart enough to steal the workgroup file.

Or spend the $150 it costs to break workgroup security.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Lyle Fairfield]

Is this kind of thing really worthwhile?

I find almost all people to be at least honest, and mostly helpful.

I have no code that I would not gladly share with anyone who politely
asked for it.

In all my life I can think of only two occasions when something has
been stolen from me. Neither was significant so far as my general
wealth was concerned.

I enjoy my work. I can think of only one time when it disappointed me,
and that, only slightly. I steered a new contract to a partner whom I
thought was a friend because I had too much other work at the time. Our
understanding, I thought, was that in a month or two, some of the work
would come back to me. None came. But I had other work and life went
on.

Perhaps I'm naive? Perhaps evil is waiting round the corner to destroy
me.

Let's think about the $5000 and small claims court. Would the process
require time and attention? Would it result in anguish and lost sleep?
Might one not do $5000 work with the equivalent time and attention, and
perhaps less anguish and more sleep?

Perhaps, someone is saying, "He doesn't understand." He/she is right.

[Jeff]

I agree basically. Legal action is hardly worth it. And most people I have
met are honest.

Its a bit like why we put locks on our doors. Will they really stop those
professionals? No. But they will deter the opportunist, and that I believe
is mainly what I am trying to do here.

Jeff

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@ aim.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ g14g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

Is this kind of thing really worthwhile?

I find almost all people to be at least honest, and mostly helpful.

I have no code that I would not gladly share with anyone who politely
asked for it.

In all my life I can think of only two occasions when something has
been stolen from me. Neither was significant so far as my general
wealth was concerned.

I enjoy my work. I can think of only one time when it disappointed me,
and that, only slightly. I steered a new contract to a partner whom I
thought was a friend because I had too much other work at the time. Our
understanding, I thought, was that in a month or two, some of the work
would come back to me. None came. But I had other work and life went
on.

Perhaps I'm naive? Perhaps evil is waiting round the corner to destroy
me.

Let's think about the $5000 and small claims court. Would the process
require time and attention? Would it result in anguish and lost sleep?
Might one not do $5000 work with the equivalent time and attention, and
perhaps less anguish and more sleep?

Perhaps, someone is saying, "He doesn't understand." He/she is right.

[Jeff]

I just wonder how the client will take having to get a code. Given that this
is fairly common to software today I suppose they will take it in their
stride.

Jeff

"Tom van Stiphout" <no************ *@cox.net> wrote in message
news:na******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:32:46 +1000, "Jeff"
<je************ @asken.com.au> wrote:

I wasn't sure how far you wanted to take this, but yes, that's a good
solution which I have used several times.
You can use this same solution to provide a demo mode that expires
after n days, unless the user calls you and gets a code to either make
it legal, or extend the demo for another 30 days.

-Tom.