Also, is there a way to do copy protection key/serial style inside max? I had thought about doing it with using the machine code using shell, but It seems that shell doesn’t work in max 5… or did something happen to shell on my computer?? does it work for others on mac os10.4 max 5.05?

Thanks and have a great one!!!

Wait, I just try open a collective taken from an app with textwrangler and, yep, there’s your code.

When you’re developing apps, you really want to stay away from third party objects. To me it happened a few times that such objects were no longer supported or updated when I had to come with a new version of an app.

For protection, a scheme that I came up with once, but never used, is that the user needs to provide an email adress, which gets scrambled and is compared to a serial number generated by you based on that email adress. Both email adress is and serial are stored within in the app and it will only launch when they match. Still you could copy the app but a splash screen could show to whom it is authorized. Many shareware apps though don’t make use of any checks and have simply a built in list of possible authorization codes.

The reason that I never used mentioned scheme is that I at some point found that apps can behave totally different and unexpected on machines different from the one you built it on. I decided that I didn’t want to spend my days doing customer support.

_
johan

Maybe, if say there was a certain patch you had to built inside your own patch would be good like say [loadbang], message box [lockpatch], [thispatcher]. Or something like that, put in the main patcher window, then can maybe pop up with different ways to protect it, by either a password or by hiding it, or something.

Maybe something like that could be put into effect in maybe a later update version of Max. But who knows. But might be something for the C74 to maybe think upon. But obviously they need to get Max for Live out and Pluggo on top…

If you want a secure app, program it in C or C++ or something.

jvkr wrote on Sat, 28 February 2009 09:36

You can take the .mxf from an app and open it in max, but you cant edit it.

Wait, I just try open a collective taken from an app with textwrangler and, yep, there’s your code.

Prior to Max 5, the binary format was tricky enough that there was a bit more to cracking the collective than a copy/paste from an editor. Nonetheless, the format was breakable.

Presumably all the more so with Max 5′s JSON-based storage.

If you’re going to sell a Standalone, you’re going to need to couple any kind of protection scheme with support, community, and other incentives to avoid unlicensed copying. And there will be copying anyway.

Quote:

When you’re developing apps, you really want to stay away from third party objects. To me it happened a few times that such objects were no longer supported or updated when I had to come with a new version of an app.

First, using bundled externals is no guarantee of longevity–Cycling has orphaned its share of externals over the years. Have you tried using a graphics window on Max 5?

But more importantly, it depends on the 3rd Party objects. There have been plenty of 3POs thrown into the wilderness without support, but there are numerous well-supported ones. As just one example, Litter Power has been supported for over nine years, across Mac 68k, PPC, Windows, OS X, OS X Intel, and the new Max 5 platform changes. And the support continues as the package continues to grow.

You get what you pay for, Johan.

Interesting thread, I had assumed the .mxf wasn’t viewable like this, but it’s true—there it is in a text editor, and it only takes a little fiddling to copy it into a new patch. Might there be a way that this gets encrypted somehow (as an option) when you create the executable/collective, which could only be loaded using a password, and therefore not runnable without it? So whoever buys it would be provided the password to run it on their machine only (which you set on a per-compile basis, and is automatically linked to the machine ID by Max when it’s opened for the first time), and if they open the .mxf in a text editor, it’s “binary garbage” which can’t be pasted into a new patch?

Having some sort of user-enterable password via a dialog box and a select would be simple, as would having a password on the overall application (applied to the .zip archive) but of course this could still be copied at will. Guess it depends on the user to be ethical about it in this case, and of course it depends on the perceived worth of the app.

As mentioned on a thread awhile back, you could investigate a commercial version of copy protection like PACE. There’s a decent start-up cost but if you sell a lot the per-unit authorization is quite low, and it is apparently very secure—many companies use it for their big-name products. I suppose if you have a dynamite app which can actually generate decent money, and you’re really worried that someone would reverse-engineer and steal the goods, it would be worth looking into.

Or maybe it will give C74 the incentive to make stand alones more secure…

At any rate, I know Ive seen a few robust video and audio applications that were made in max, I seem to remember vidvox VDMX being made with max… but I dont remember..

If your hopes rest on Cycling ’74 investing energy into encrypting the innards of standalones, I would recommend looking through the archives. No harm in asking, but a reality check may be called for.

“This is not the first time this has been discussed. The issue’s been around for around twenty years and you think you’re the first person affected by it?”-peter

Gregory Taylor wrote on Sun, 01 March 2009 18:28

I don’t believe that anyone said you were the first to question this. The suggestion was that those before you may have been somewhat more circumspect about things for any number of reasons.

For Nortron Peter’s written an external which pulls some low level identification bits from the customer machine which we then key the app bundle to. This works fine, but we haven’t looked at how we’re going to handle it on Max 5 since the app bundle sources are easily readable by any Max 30 day demo user. FWIW, we built a database to keep track of authorizations and do the new version emailings automatically from within Max. Also, we built a network authorization system but haven’t needed it yet.

Perhaps Cycling could do an app store similar to Apple’s iPhone App Store, except in this case sell 3rd party audio and video plugins and standalones. A sort of bridge between Max wizards and professional media authors.

Whatever support commercial Max developers can get seems positive to me so I’ll keep writing

< http://www.cycling74.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&goto=156934> (scroll down to Andrew Pask’s comment for my main point, but follow the whole thread to get a feel for the context)

I tried once, but everybody laughed at me.

-A

You do find a mention of it here (Max46Topics.pdf, page 18):

“On Macintosh, Max builds universal binary standalone applications. The standalone is an application package, which is also a folder that looks like a file in the Finder.”

Perhaps that’s what you were thinking of. I’m not sure I’d read the term “universal binary” the same way, however. In that context, it would refer to an executable file or application bundle that runs natively on either PowerPC or x86 (Intel)-based Macintosh computers.

I’m not paying hundreds $ of maxmsp/jitter licenses + updates to hear something like that from somebody working for Cycling74. It’s matter of a serious subject.

At least, respect the customers. If you have nothing usefull to say, don’t say. Save your time for your gaming.

You do find a mention of it here (Max46Topics.pdf, page 18):

“On Macintosh, Max builds universal binary standalone applications. The standalone is an application package, which is also a folder that looks like a file in the Finder.”

Perhaps that’s what you were thinking of. I’m not sure I’d read the term “universal binary” the same way, however. In that context, it would refer to an executable file or application bundle that runs natively on either PowerPC or x86 (Intel)-based Macintosh computers.

No, I am not an idiot, and wasn’t referring to universal binaries. I also wasn’t referencing the documentation at all – I just remember build Max 4.6 apps, and having no easy access to the source code that the run time was using.

Cycling74 should consider is as feature request!
Chris

Seconded (and from the emails I’ve gotten about my little obscuring trick, tenthed or so). It’d be nice to have the option to release closed-source material, built in max and not C++ or C.