Re: Fujitsu support - need help - Netcobol for windows and licensed controls.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:04:14 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2f4q82t0n3vadc2epu2385uk4jfh52i2a4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:26:48 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Frederico Fonseca wrote:
Hi all,


I have a question that so far I have been unable to solve, and either
someone here has a solution for it, or I would like to have someone
with an active maintenance contract with them to pose this question to
them.

Situation
Power COBOL V7, 3rd party OCX control, properly licensed.

When run in test machine it gets a message box appears saying "file
License.dat is not found. License Agreement can not be completed"
If we copy the ".lic" file into the same folder as the supplied
activeX .OCX then it works fine, but this is obviously ilegal to do,
as it is basically distibuiting the development license.


It may not be as illegal as you think. The supplier may have no problem with
you doing this. Talk to them.
I read the license they supply, then I spoke with them, then several
emails were exchanged with them regarding the technicalities, and ONLY
after all other venues were exhausted I did post in CLC asking for
help.



From what I have found so far it seems that FJ is not implementing the
functionality of IClassfactory2 interface which is the method many
ActiveX controls use to determine if the control is being distributed
from a legal copy of the software, and I have been unable to find a
way to "fix" this from within POWERCobol.


Jeff is correct and there is nothing Fujitsu can do about your problem. It
is down to the third party supplier to provide a run time license file (or
not).

This is true because the IClassFactory2 methods are implemented by the
windows COM library, not PowerCOBOL. The .OCX you are using invokes these
methods, not PowerCOBOL.
Incorrect for both Jeff and Pete.

IClassFactory is implemented within COM that part is correct, but it
is up to the container to allow for the available licensing controls
in order to allow controls to be added to it. Although the ActiveX
control does not NEED to use the IClassFactory it does need to
implement it (at least in C++). It is up to the container to see if it
is implemented and if required by the control then he (the container)
should use it.




The .OCX you are using may not allow 'runtime' license deployment on a
'development' licensed machine. The .OCX developer should have information
on the licensing requirements.
IClassFactory2 IS the method used to create objects that require a
license key/string to be supplied to the said object so they can
verify they are valid. Other methods include supplying a property on
the object, or supplying a ".lic" file that is only used for runtime
validation and not development.

No, it is only a CONVENTION and nobody writing COM controls HAS to implement
that interface (I don't). I would contact the supplier and explain the
problem. If they require validation through that interface, they should
provide a method which implements it. If they don't, then it is fair to ask
them how the component is to be validated at run time.

They may require you to do it directly using the COM library. Whichever way
you look at it, it is hardly a Fujitsu problem.

PowerCOBOL is simply a container just like any other COM container. If you
placed this component on a server side page, would you complain to Microsoft
because ASP was unable to instantiate it? :-)
I didn't, but others did. And note that a component is not the same
thing as an ActiveX Control.


Fujitsu cannot possibly know how every third party supplier is going to
require run time validation.(If they require it at all...)
as I said this validation is a subset of the IClassFactory (which FJ
DOES implement), and it is a subset used to validate licensing. Once
it is implemented correctly by any container, it will work with ALL
third party controls used within that container.


(In my experience many suppliers don't require it, and there is nothing to
stop anyone re-usng their component once it is registered on a client
system. (Of course, the majority of clients are not developers and probably
don't have an Object Browser readily available to find out the methods and
properties...). Also, most clients would not even be aware the component was
there once they had installed the application.)
My experience (although not with FJ COBOL) is MANY suppliers do
require a runtime license, and most of them do implement it using only
the mentioned class. The fact that most "clients" do not notice that
they have available a illegal license of a piece of software will not
prevent BSA (or whatever similar legal entities available on your
country) from processing your company should it be found in 100 of
your computers, as supplying the ".lic" without proper authorization
would amount to piracy.


I honestly believe your best option here is to communicate with the
supplier.

Pete.

Not really. Best option would be for FJ to have this implemented
(which it seems they have not), and the second one would be for
someone that has gone through this problem to post the solution here
or by private email.
Note that I may now have found a solution but will not be testing this
until tomorrow (1 AM now, bed time).

If I am correct I will be happy to share the solution with anyone that
needs it.

And for clarification , V8 also has the same problem (just tried it).


Regards

Frederico Fonseca


Frederico Fonseca
ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fujitsu support - need help - Netcobol for windows and licensed controls.
    ... Power COBOL V7, 3rd party OCX control, properly licensed. ... as it is basically distibuiting the development license. ... way to "fix" this from within POWERCobol. ... is down to the third party supplier to provide a run time license file (or ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Fujitsu support - need help - Netcobol for windows and licensed controls.
    ... Power COBOL V7, 3rd party OCX control, properly licensed. ... as it is basically distibuiting the development license. ... development license key, while the "License.dat" file seems to be the deployment ... IClassFactory and IClassFactory2 are *interfaces* ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • [very long report] my theory and practical tests
    ... I then went on and at 18 I got my car license, ... easy if you are familiar with clutch and gears on a bike, ... Shoulder checks and low speed control: ... *rear brake only* after the midpoint because the ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... The fact this is a good license for making zillions of dollars, ... some jurisdictions allow the control of _other_ information via our ... hardware that is associated with our software, ... jurisdiction allows the controlling of various aspects of movie theaters ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • OFF LIST:Re: GPL encumbrance problems
    ... It's like seeing some whiz-bang control you might like to use if you're ... There>IS< a 'Gift Debt' that comes from using opensource, which according to my perspectives is the imperative to 'pass it forward'. ... That's a no brainer, I don't need to absorb all the money there is in circulation, unlike someone I could name. ... He believes that one should only sell copies, not license ...
    (Fedora)