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

[Sky]

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

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

I assume you have a standard way of installing your applications, or even
installing your library for use in development. (If not, you probably should
have a self-contained installer, if only to reduce support for multiple
users. For example, I use InnoSetup to create a self-contained executable
install package.)

Your installation procedure could set an obscure registry value that is not
used at all in your front-end MDB application. When your front end calls the
library initialization function, the library could check for that obscure
registry value and stop if it is incorrect.

- Steve

[David W. Fenton]

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

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

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.

There's one aspect in which it may be important to file something
official: if you go to small claims court, and win a judgment
against this developer, whether or not you can ever collect on it,
you have at least put into the public record that the individual in
question is dishonest. That may be the best you can do, to damage
the public reputation of the thief.
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.

If you know someone stole from you, you still file a police report,
even if you know that the police can never actually catch and
prosecute the individual.

Of course, I'm not certain that a case like this can actually be
filed in small claims court. It's rather nebulous in terms of the
offense, and small claims court tends to be for pretty cut-and-dried
issues, almost all limited to "someone owes me money and hasn't
paid." Questions of infringement of intellectual property are
factually much more complex. Even though it's quite clear to us that
your rights have been infringed, from a legal standpoint, there
isn't necessarily any clearcut answer as to what damages flow from
that fact.

Talk to a lawyer.

But perhaps your best leverage is simply to make clear to your
client that this is unethical and shouldn't be happening, and that
you expect *them* to do something about it, or they will be seen by
you as condoning the theft. They didn't instigate it, nor would they
have approved it if asked by her (yes?), but they now know about it
and ought to do whatever they can to let her know that they don't
like contractors who behave dishonestly.

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

[David W. Fenton]

"Sky" <sk*@NOSPAMstan leyassociates.c om> wrote in
news:zSrqf.787$ 2B5.516@trnddc0 1:

I assume you have a standard way of installing your applications,
or even installing your library for use in development. (If not,
you probably should have a self-contained installer, if only to
reduce support for multiple users. For example, I use InnoSetup to
create a self-contained executable install package.)

Your installation procedure could set an obscure registry value
that is not used at all in your front-end MDB application. When
your front end calls the library initialization function, the
library could check for that obscure registry value and stop if it
is incorrect.

Does InnoSetup allow you to require an installation code of some
kind? That is, say it stores an MD5 encryption of some code, and the
user has to type that in to install the library? Otherwise, anyone
who can get his or her hands on the installer could use it.

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

[Sky]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** ***********@127 .0.0.1...

"Sky" <sk*@NOSPAMstan leyassociates.c om> wrote in
news:zSrqf.787$ 2B5.516@trnddc0 1:

I assume you have a standard way of installing your applications,
or even installing your library for use in development. (If not,
you probably should have a self-contained installer, if only to
reduce support for multiple users. For example, I use InnoSetup to
create a self-contained executable install package.)

Your installation procedure could set an obscure registry value
that is not used at all in your front-end MDB application. When
your front end calls the library initialization function, the
library could check for that obscure registry value and stop if it
is incorrect.

Does InnoSetup allow you to require an installation code of some
kind? That is, say it stores an MD5 encryption of some code, and the
user has to type that in to install the library? Otherwise, anyone
who can get his or her hands on the installer could use it.

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

Yes, InnoSetup does have that capability. It also permits customization by
code, or it can call your own application or DLL during setup, so you can do
basically anything if you are willing to code. Actually, most installers can
do that. (I like InnoSetup because it is powerful, simple to use, open
source, and actively maintained.)

As with all installers, you can easily embed a license that the customer
must agree to. This might help to formalize the entire process with the
customer.

But if your customer is passing out your installation package for use by
another developer, well that is a different situation and I was not trying
to address case that specifically.

- Steve

[Terry Kreft]

Hmm, yes, I spoted ion a later posting that mdb files are being distributed.
There probably isn't a lot to be done in stopping this happening in that
case, except making the library so specific to the application that it
ceases to be a generic library, rather as you suggest elsewhere in this
thread.
--
Terry Kreft

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid > wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** **********@127. 0.0.1...

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mp s.co.uk> wrote in
news:OF******** ************@ka roo.co.uk:

I'm taking it that your distributed apps are compiled to MDEs as
well as your library database

Yes, but he already said that the client has the source code MDB and
that the developer probably took a copy of that to figure out how to
use his library. Using a GUID or any other form of validation simply
won't work, as so soon as you can figure out what *does* work, you
can write something to pass something valid to the MDE.

I don't think there's any technical solution to this problem.

There are only ethical/legal solutions.

The client should fire the other developer if she won't stop
stealing from the client's other developers.

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