Allowing owners to duplicate copyright material that they own is a relatively new phenomenon. And is still illegal in many countries, for example, here in Australia the law was updated less then 12 months ago (December 2006) - http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G070.pdf. Before these recent updates (I believe similar changes have occurred in the UK, Canada and the US, not sure about other countries) this argument fell into the illegal but moral category which tends to outrage fair-use proponents.
Old laws: moral & legal: Use of purchased material moral & illegal: Copying material for own use immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else
New laws: moral & legal: Use of purchased material & copying for own use moral & illegal: Copying material with copy protection for own use immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else immoral & legal: Applying DRM which actually makes copying for own use illegal because of DMCA like laws
Really you are better off putting as little effort into it as possible. You will NOT beat the real pirates, it is too easy.
However, one thing to look at is being compensated when your license / copyright is violated. If you put some (meaning minimal) protection in, it provides enough ammo for the lawyers to do something about. Most commercial organizations have some sort of IP lawyer that will work out if infringements are worth chasing down pretty quickly.
Another important note, it should NEVER be the developers decision to put in copy protection. If the code is for your personal use, grow up, open source it. If the code is for commercial use, it is a business decision, not a technical decision, weather it is worthwhile to track down license violations
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing owners to duplicate copyright material that they own is a relatively new phenomenon. And is still illegal in many countries, for example, here in Australia the law was updated less then 12 months ago (December 2006) - http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G070.pdf. Before these recent updates (I believe similar changes have occurred in the UK, Canada and the US, not sure about other countries) this argument fell into the illegal but moral category which tends to outrage fair-use proponents.
Old laws:
moral & legal: Use of purchased material
moral & illegal: Copying material for own use
immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else
New laws:
moral & legal: Use of purchased material & copying for own use
moral & illegal: Copying material with copy protection for own use
immoral & illegal: Copying material for someone else
immoral & legal: Applying DRM which actually makes copying for own use illegal because of DMCA like laws
So new copyright laws are better, but still crud.
Really you are better off putting as little effort into it as possible. You will NOT beat the real pirates, it is too easy.
However, one thing to look at is being compensated when your license / copyright is violated. If you put some (meaning minimal) protection in, it provides enough ammo for the lawyers to do something about. Most commercial organizations have some sort of IP lawyer that will work out if infringements are worth chasing down pretty quickly.
Another important note, it should NEVER be the developers decision to put in copy protection. If the code is for your personal use, grow up, open source it. If the code is for commercial use, it is a business decision, not a technical decision, weather it is worthwhile to track down license violations