Toneboosters Linux Native plugins (VST3) are almost here

[midi sentinel]

Toneboosters being available on Linux is what finally made me switch.

No matter what he does (might try activating later on while sniffing the traffic, just to see) I blindly trust him to eventually do the right thing, whatever the problem might be. Assuming there is one.

He might tell me that PC was better than Amiga and I would let him live.

He has earned *that* much credit (in my case), for all his work so far

[neverbeeninariot]

Something doesn't add up here. This is what I asked the developer:

I wonder what copy protection your plugins use, esp. if they require communication with an online service for activation. I know I have to enter a serial and an email address but that doesn't tell me if it has to check back witht an online service or nor. I worry about these things because a big plugin developer has been shutting down their activation service for older versions of their plugins so I had to upgrade even though the newer version only featured a worse UI - nothing I wanted to have.

This is what the developer wrote me:

Thanks for your email.

Activation should work with and without internet connection.

That makes me expect this to work with their service reachable or not.

Hm, so it is server based after all?

It is - you enter your activation code and your email then the licence is then validated. After that you do not need to be online or reactivate at any time (unless you deactivate it).

Is there maybe an alternative way in the UI to activate the plugin that's only available when there's no internet connection?

Ok that's interesting. I just deactivated and reactivated a plugin here, and it took a little while to activate - the animated logo sure makes it look like it's speaking to a server, but if they dev says it's not required, then I'm inclined to believe him - that said, I've never noticed another way to activate, but perhaps there is...

The real test would be to try to activate on a new machine with no ethernet cable, and the WiFi turned off.

Yep for sure. I haven't installed any on my Debian laptop yet, but I'll give it a try with the WiFi turned off when I get a chance and report back.

[ghettosynth]

It sounds server based to me. I'm not sure how else you'd manage activations in an offline mode? I get for some that the limit is that it will continue to work on the same offline computer for years. I need the licenses to be portable across machines. This is why I still prefer iLok. The dongle can be moved to a completely new machine without anything ever being online. The activation is tied to it being activated on the dongle. It is a kind of hardware dependence, but to a dongle that is restricted to that purpose.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing how that's managed?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It sounds server based to me. I'm not sure how else you'd manage activations in an offline mode? I get for some that the limit is that it will continue to work on the same offline computer for years. I need the licenses to be portable across machines. This is why I still prefer iLok. The dongle can be moved to a completely new machine without anything ever being online. The activation is tied to it being activated on the dongle. It is a kind of hardware dependence, but to a dongle that is restricted to that purpose.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing how that's managed?

Not sure if that is the case here, but the four machine limit could be part of the licensing agreement (EULA) that is not enforced through technical measures.

[ghettosynth]

It sounds server based to me. I'm not sure how else you'd manage activations in an offline mode? I get for some that the limit is that it will continue to work on the same offline computer for years. I need the licenses to be portable across machines. This is why I still prefer iLok. The dongle can be moved to a completely new machine without anything ever being online. The activation is tied to it being activated on the dongle. It is a kind of hardware dependence, but to a dongle that is restricted to that purpose.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing how that's managed?

Not sure if that is the case here, but the four machine limit could be part of the licensing agreement (EULA) that is not enforced through technical measures.

No, I get that. It sounds like it isn't though. It certainly needs clarification here.

[audiojunkie]

It sounds server based to me. I'm not sure how else you'd manage activations in an offline mode? I get for some that the limit is that it will continue to work on the same offline computer for years. I need the licenses to be portable across machines. This is why I still prefer iLok. The dongle can be moved to a completely new machine without anything ever being online. The activation is tied to it being activated on the dongle. It is a kind of hardware dependence, but to a dongle that is restricted to that purpose.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing how that's managed?

Not sure if that is the case here, but the four machine limit could be part of the licensing agreement (EULA) that is not enforced through technical measures.

I was thinking that this could be a possibility as well. It could be relying on the honor system and trusting that you won't abuse your privileges. If that's the case, that would make me really happy, because for me, the ultimate mark of a good copy protection scheme is to be able to pull the software and the serial/key off of a backup, and install it onto a new computer--even if the company no longer exists. Then, I can feel safe with my purchase.

[FrettedSynth]

Purchased Enhancer installed and licensed with no internet, MX Linux.

[ghettosynth]

It sounds server based to me. I'm not sure how else you'd manage activations in an offline mode? I get for some that the limit is that it will continue to work on the same offline computer for years. I need the licenses to be portable across machines. This is why I still prefer iLok. The dongle can be moved to a completely new machine without anything ever being online. The activation is tied to it being activated on the dongle. It is a kind of hardware dependence, but to a dongle that is restricted to that purpose.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing how that's managed?

Not sure if that is the case here, but the four machine limit could be part of the licensing agreement (EULA) that is not enforced through technical measures.

I was thinking that this could be a possibility as well. It could be relying on the honor system and trusting that you won't abuse your privileges. If that's the case, that would make me really happy, because for me, the ultimate mark of a good copy protection scheme is to be able to pull the software and the serial/key off of a backup, and install it onto a new computer--even if the company no longer exists. Then, I can feel safe with my purchase.

I hope so as well. The use case you describe is exactly it. I think those of us who use Linux regularly might also have some intersection with those that move computers into different roles quite a bit.

Given the one successful report above, can we re-establish the description of the procedure accurately?

[midi sentinel]

Ok, did a quick test.

Authorized Barricade while online and it made 2 TLS requests to www.toneboosters.com. 2nd was made when I clicked authorize.

Disconnected from network then authorized BitJuggler. It authorized locally with no issues.

I then closed BitJuggler, reconnected to network and restarted BitJuggler. It made a single TLS request back www.toneboosters.com.

Then I reopened Barricade (that was already authorized) and it also made a single TLS request.

Initially, I thought that BitJuggler's request back was to update license status or something, but now that I see Barricade doing the same, maybe it was just an update check.

I have no intention to strace it or go deeper into debugging it, I truly don't care and fact that it authorized without having Internet connectivity is enough for me. Maybe it would stop working after a while if it can't talk back to server? Who knows. But not going to investigate that deep.

Actually, I just deauthorized Barricade while online and it did not make a request back when I clicked Deauthorize. So perhaps TB dev is truly just trusting us not to be c**ts and is creating/removing local authorizations without a need to talk back to the server.

[ghettosynth]

(edit) It _appears_ to be server based - you enter your activation code and your email, there's an animated icon for a short time while the licence is validated.
After that you do not need to be online or reactivate at any time (unless you deactivate it).

So, based on this and the other report from above. It seems that the activation code is just locked to your email then. That is, it is identity based only and not machine based. I get that satisfied customers don't care, but, I do, and so do, I expect others. It's not anyone else's responsibility to test this, of course. However, I give a high premium to pure identify based keyfile/serial protection. That is, you move to the front of the line and hang out with iLok. For Linux, you are in front of iLok as the king of the commercial heap. So, it would be nice if we could either confirm this from our own data, or, if ToneBoosters would chime in.

[neverbeeninariot]

(edit) It _appears_ to be server based - you enter your activation code and your email, there's an animated icon for a short time while the licence is validated.
After that you do not need to be online or reactivate at any time (unless you deactivate it).

So, based on this and the other report from above. It seems that the activation code is just locked to your email then. That is, it is identity based only and not machine based. I get that satisfied customers don't care, but, I do, and so do, I expect others. It's not anyone else's responsibility to test this, of course. However, I give a high premium to pure identify based keyfile/serial protection. That is, you move to the front of the line and hang out with iLok. For Linux, you are in front of iLok as the king of the commercial heap. So, it would be nice if we could either confirm this from our own data, or, if ToneBoosters would chime in.

I activated Barricade for the first time on my Debian laptop this morning while offline with no issues - activation was instant.

Added an edit/correction to my earlier post with the above result.