le 2001/07/09 21:32, Bowerbird@... à Bowerbird@... a écrit :

> more whispers to the gnome...
> 
> ***
> 
> i should have added earlier that my thoughts on this question of
> how to make the "same-or-different-machine?" determination
> didn't originate in the issue of copy-protection, not directly.

[snip]

> (though a mother's face is changing on a day-to-day basis,
> her baby is still able to recognize her as the same person.)

having changed many fuzzy babies over the years, i appreciate this analogy.

> as long as the "momma" (i.e., computer) looks roughly the same,
> the "baby" (program) adapts to changes in her, updates the image.
> 
> there would also be provisions for an author to "over-ride" it,
> to allow editing on several different of the author's machines.
> (these other machines are called "aunts", and get full privileges.)
> 
> ***
> 
> anyway...
> 
> if this system were to be used for copy-protection purposes,
> i think a number of different considerations come into play.

fuzzily identifying a machine is a valid exercise. and i can see the
temptation to use it as part of copy protection. as i have already stated to
rich, i can see instances [and others can see others - i like you idea of
editable and no-editable books] where the need to identify a machine exists
- using it for copy protection is like using a wonderful rothko as a doormat
[you can, but it ain't right somehow!].

fuzzy regards to al
:-j