How to "protect" non-commercial library against commercial use

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

I'm working on a LabVIEW library of SubVIs. I'd like to provide it free of charge for non-commercial use and with some fee to commercial use to cover the expenses. I would like to protect the library against misuse of the non-commercial version somehow. If it was an application, I could display in the beginning that this application is only for non-commercial use. However, it's not an application, but a library of SubVIs. Does anybody have any good ideas how to protect SubVI library against non-commercial license misuse.

[bsvingen]

I think this is more a matter of effort vs (potential) income/loss than anything else. If you think the potential income is large, then why give it out for free? If you think the potential income is low, then why charge for it? If it is something in between then you could just give it out for free for non comercial use and charge for commercial use and hope that most people are honest and/or charge enough so that you legally can protect it in court if you have to.

It also depends if your VIs are of an "industrial" or highly technical character (will only or mostly be used by corporations and specialists) or if they readily can be used by "most" people, ie. they are more of a generic character. IMO highly technical and special software can be charged (very) high, and there is no meaning of giving it out for free, while more generic software can only be sold much cheaper and it is the potential quantity that can be sold decides if it is worth while charging for it.

[crelf]

It also depends on what you mean by commercial - do you mean that a company can't use it internally, or they can't use it in projects that they ultimately sell?

Either way, the software itself can't tell whether the code it's being used inconjunction with is commercial or not, so your easiest way out is a nag screen. That will stop anyone from selling your code as a component of their own...

[JDave]

Of a similar nature, how do you protect applications?

I have seen trial periods (does not work at all out of trial period), software keys, nag screens, etc.

What are the pros and cons of these and other methods?

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

Good question dsaunders. I'd like to add if there are good LV libraries for license management, software keys, etc available out there... ?

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

Good question dsaunders. I'd like to add if there are good LV libraries for license management, software keys, etc available out there... ?

Apart from some more or less well written VIs to access specific USB and similar keys I'm not aware of much in this direction. The problem as I see it is how much do you want to spend to protect your software?

Usually LabVIEW is not used for high volume applications (it's runtime licensing while quite liberal nowadays does not always lend itself well for this) and therefore a license protection that costs days and weeks of development time is not likely to recover its own costs. And license management is a trade of its own with most of what is on the markt nowadays being more of a solution to fend of the casual copier than a way to really dwart the determined hacker.

And lets be honest, the only fool proof copy protection is to lock up your software in a safe, destroy any backup copies and throw away the key to the safe

So what is it you want to prevent and how much is it worth to you? If it is about not allowing to run your software by people that would anyhow never buy your software, then honestly every single dollar spent into copy protection is simply lost money. If it is about the fun to have copy protection built into your application, it's the same. Only if you can make a valid case that software will be bought thanks to copy protection can you start to look into spending money for this if you want to think commercial.

As for me I'm much more likely to buy a LabVIEW add-on toolkit with a honest price that uses no copy protection than using an overpriced toolkit illegally at all. And a copy protected software always gets 10 minus points in my opinion if I have to evaluate such software. I may still buy it but then it needs to be a LOT better than its competition.

Rolf Kalbermatter

[crelf]

...copy protected software always gets 10 minus points in my opinion if I have to evaluate such software. I may still buy it but then it needs to be a LOT better than its competition.

Isn't that just another way of saying you like free software over software you have to pay for?

Just because it's copy protected doesn't mean that you need to pay for it. Granted, these two usually come together, but not always...

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

Isn't that just another way of saying you like free software over software you have to pay for?

Just because it's copy protected doesn't mean that you need to pay for it. Granted, these two usually come together, but not always...

Hmm, I haven't seen free software that uses copy protection. :-) Not sure that means anything though!

If I have the choice between a software that uses copy protection and one that doesn't I would almost always choose the one without, independant if it is free or not. The only thing I hate more than copy protected software is software that has spyware or other similar things in it.

Rolf Kalbermatter

[crelf]

If I have the choice between a software that uses copy protection and one that doesn't I would almost always choose the one without, independant if it is free or not. The only thing I hate more than copy protected software is software that has spyware or other similar things in it.

That's an interesting sentiment - do you not like copy protected software arbitrarily, or is there a reason behind it?

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

That's an interesting sentiment - do you not like copy protected software arbitrarily, or is there a reason behind it?

I admit it is a sentiment, but it also has practical reasons. Copy protection has come in my way a few times when using legit software. If the copy protection decides to strike its bad day when you are close to a deadline you really are close to destroying company property by seeing how long it takes to fly from the second floor until it hits the pavement

Rolf Kalbermatter

[crelf]

...when you are close to a deadline you really are close to destroying company property by seeing how long it takes to fly from the second floor until it hits the pavement

As disturbing and humourous that image is I've never had a problem with copy protected software at crunchtime. Sure, I've had my share of issues when trying to get it up and running initially, but never when I was delivering a product (hey: Windows is a copy protected software ). Even if I did, there are a million other things that could go wrong then too, so I still don't consider non-protected software any better than protected software when making a purchase decision - from my experience, it's just not a big deal to me...

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

So what is it you want to prevent and how much is it worth to you? If it is about not allowing to run your software by people that would anyhow never buy your software, then honestly every single dollar spent into copy protection is simply lost money. If it is about the fun to have copy protection built into your application, it's the same. Only if you can make a valid case that software will be bought thanks to copy protection can you start to look into spending money for this if you want to think commercial.

Everybody knows that it is very common that comapnies and laboratories buy too few licenses and then create unauthorized copies of the software internally. It's unfair that I have to charge the honest customers extra price to cover the unbought licenses. Every license control system can be cracked, however even the simplest license control system gives users the message that the it is not proper to create unlicensed copies of the software.

There are many issues where license management scheme is a validly applied.

1) Beta testing - You may want to limit your beta testers from using beta stage software after it becomes obsolete.

2) Free download for trial versions - A limited period fully featured license for trial version

3) Alternative pricing models allow users to choose the pricing model that best suits them

- Pay per user

- Pay per computer

- Pay per capacity

- Pay per active use

- Site licenses

- Periodic payments

- Pay per feature

- Superdistribution (peer-to-peer distribution)

So it is not only about copy protection. It is also about giving customers alternatives of the payment schemes. I can attract more customers if I can give light users cheaper or even free licenses at the same time I charge heavy users more. This won't be possible without some kind of license management.

Of course I need to consider if it is worth it. If I am about to write a license management software toolkit, would there be interest among the LabVIEW developer community in this kind of toolkit?

There is a white paper at The Register about license management issues.