[fpc-pascal] Re: Editing resource of executable

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

waldo kitty wrote:

>> Of course, an even safer way would be to leave the executable alone 
>> and to put
>> an early check in the startup code that a subsidiary key file existed, 
>> and for
>> that key to include something that identified the machine or site on 
>> which the
>> program was entitled to run.
> 
> true... but as i recall, one of the goals of this capability was to not 
> have extra files laying about... i remember the days of dongles and 
> never liked them at all...

Oh yes. And all those copy-protection systems that transferred a token 
from a floppy to a file on disc.

But if the choice was between having an extra file or patching the 
executable, and if the patched executable failed on 5% of customer 
systems due to an OS or anti-virus check, I'd settle for the extra file 
and count myself lucky.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]