CW 10 License nightmare
James W. Walker
desktop computer under certain conditions, and it was working for a few
days. Suddenly today it decided that I was not licensed on the laptop.
I verified that I was using the same license.dat file that continues to
work fine on the desktop. Since I can't expect support on a weekend
(these things always happen to me on a weekend), I decided to bite the
bullet and buy another license. But the new one doesn't work either!
I tried logging in as another user, and booting into Panther instead of
the usual Tiger, but no joy.
Project Error 202049.This IDE is not licensed for full functionality,
so there is a limit of 32 files per target. To obtain a full license
please e-mail sa...@metrowerks.com or call (800) 377-5416 or
+1-512-997-4700 (international)
Paul Russell
The whole licensing/activation thing in CW 10 is bizarre. It seems to be
very unreliable, and I can't understand why it's even necessary on a $99
product which has a limited lifetime. I hope that Freescale will do the
right thing and remove it if/when there's a 10.1 update.
Paul
fro...@googlemail.com
> The whole licensing/activation thing in CW 10 is bizarre. It seems to be
> very unreliable, and I can't understand why it's even necessary on a $99
> product which has a limited lifetime.
Bizarre is indeed the word for it. Even more so as the whole
implementation and processing of it seem to be only half working, from
sales, to software, to registration, I hit at least one bug on every
step of the way with CW 10. Now I really wonder if other Freescale
customers for the embedded tools are very willing to accept such a
broken process for very long (it was introduced with CW 9 for the
desktop tools after all) or will just move to other products as well...
> I hope that Freescale will do the
> right thing and remove it if/when there's a 10.1 update.
The same incompetent managers who sold the x86 compiler weeks before
Apple's public statement to switch processors are still in place. Do
you really think they care about any former Metrowerks product, or this
particular one at all? Or, as a matter of fact, do you think they even
remotely know what they are doing, and what market they are operating
in is like?
I certainly won't ever buy a Freescale software product again. in fact
just last week I went to check for their ARM embedded compiler. Turns
out they are discontinuing (pardon, evaluating how to continue) that
product as well; never mind that it is the most successful embedded
32-bit processor and has is strongly growing in the 32-bit
microcontroller market.
</rant>
Thorsten
Ron L
"James W. Walker" <osxN...@jwwalker.com.invalid> wrote:
>The CW 10 license allows the use of one license on a laptop and a
>desktop computer under certain conditions, and it was working for a few
>days. Suddenly today it decided that I was not licensed on the laptop.
>I verified that I was using the same license.dat file that continues to
>work fine on the desktop. Since I can't expect support on a weekend
>(these things always happen to me on a weekend), I decided to bite the
>bullet and buy another license. But the new one doesn't work either!
>
>I tried logging in as another user, and booting into Panther instead of
>the usual Tiger, but no joy.
The problem is that the license is cached and it finds the CW 9 license
instead of the CW 10 license. At this point I don't know where it is
cached. We will open a incident report with Macrovision and see if we
can find some answers.
ron
--
CodeWarrior Community Forum is a free online resource for developers
to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and our staff
-- http://www.codewarrior.com/community --
Ron Liechty - ron.l...@freescale.com - http://www.codewarrior.com
Ron L
Paul Russell <prus...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>The whole licensing/activation thing in CW 10 is bizarre. It seems to be
>very unreliable, and I can't understand why it's even necessary on a $99
>product which has a limited lifetime. I hope that Freescale will do the
>right thing and remove it if/when there's a 10.1 update.
The only way I could give the academic version free was to have the
licensed activation and no evaluation version.
The problem is what should work is not working and we will find out why.
Ron
Ron L
fro...@googlemail.com wrote:
>Paul Russell wrote:
>> The whole licensing/activation thing in CW 10 is bizarre. It seems to be
>> very unreliable, and I can't understand why it's even necessary on a $99
>> product which has a limited lifetime.
>
>Bizarre is indeed the word for it. Even more so as the whole
>implementation and processing of it seem to be only half working, from
>sales, to software, to registration, I hit at least one bug on every
>step of the way with CW 10.
This is probably my fault I've never ever attempted to do marketing but
I took on this role in order to get a product out. There were gaps but
I think we quickly fixed most of them. As far as I can tell this has
been the easiest upgrade of any Mac version.
> Now I really wonder if other Freescale
>customers for the embedded tools are very willing to accept such a
>broken process for very long (it was introduced with CW 9 for the
>desktop tools after all) or will just move to other products as well...
Actually Desktop tools were the guinea pigs for CW 9 but embedded
people don't make second copies of the software (in theory Mac users
shouldn't either).
>> I hope that Freescale will do the
>> right thing and remove it if/when there's a 10.1 update.
The only way I can do this is to remove the free version
>The same incompetent managers who sold the x86 compiler weeks before
>Apple's public statement to switch processors are still in place.
Actually no they aren't, I don't think a single one of them is left.
This had nothing to do with Apple. It was a decision that Metrowerks
needed to solely focus on enabling Freescale chips.
>I certainly won't ever buy a Freescale software product again. in fact
>just last week I went to check for their ARM embedded compiler. Turns
>out they are discontinuing (pardon, evaluating how to continue) that
>product as well; never mind that it is the most successful embedded
>32-bit processor and has is strongly growing in the 32-bit
>microcontroller market.
It is too Freescale's and the developers technology branch that they
recognized that they would not be able to support this product properly.
This is exactly what I would want a company to do.
Are things changing certainly, has it taken a while to get our act
together yes, is DevTech focused squarely on Freescale Silicon yes.
Our intention was to do what was right for our Mac customers, to get
them a product that would allow them to bring their old projects up to
date, to make their PowerPC projects something that might last a few
more years and to do this at a price point that would allow this to be
affortable to everyone. I think we succeeded on this.
I appreciate your comments.
Paul Russell
>
> The problem is that the license is cached and it finds the CW 9 license
> instead of the CW 10 license. At this point I don't know where it is
> cached. We will open a incident report with Macrovision and see if we
> can find some answers.
>
One possible problem seems to be that ~/.flexlmrc caches paths to every
license.dat that the license manager has ever seen, including
obsolete/invalid paths. Editing (or just deleting ?) this file so that
it only contains valid paths may help in some cases.
Paul
Alwyn
Ron L <ron.l...@freescale.com> wrote:
>
> Actually Desktop tools were the guinea pigs for CW 9 but embedded
> people don't make second copies of the software (in theory Mac users
> shouldn't either).
Surely, the 'theory' resides in the EULA. As I understand it, the EULA
allows one to make two installations, as long as one, and no more than
one, is on a 'portable style computer'.
Now, the overall wording seems to me to be, like that of many other
EULAs, of dubious legal enforceability, but it would seem that the right
of the user to instal the software on more than one computer is well
established.
Alwyn
Ron L
Paul Russell <prus...@sonic.net> wrote:
We found it,
Apparently in the copying the license.dat file gets change. In the
license.dat file in several places it has
& as in
OS X & Classic
and that should be
OS X; & Classic
so if you edit the file to remove the amp it works.
Ron
Ron L
<dt015a1979-ADE61...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Alwyn <dt015...@mac.com> wrote:
We have in the past allowed desktop tools on more than one machine for
testing purposes, I don't think this violates the spirit of the EULA.
Ron
George Warner
>
> I certainly won't ever buy a Freescale software product again. in fact
> just last week I went to check for their ARM embedded compiler. Turns
> out they are discontinuing (pardon, evaluating how to continue) that
> product as well; never mind that it is the most successful embedded
> 32-bit processor and has is strongly growing in the 32-bit
> microcontroller market.
>
> </rant>
>
> Thorsten
OMG! The ARM tools were the best thing that Freescale had besides
the Mac tools. They are dropping ARM, too!?
We recently dumped about $100K for Freescale StarCore DSP tools which
are unusable for a production environment.
Freescale's response was that they were not fixing the problems
and they were dropping the product. Thanks a bunch, Freescale.
Is there ANYTHING or ANYONE left of Metrowerks at Freescale? Or are
they just cashing in anyway they can on what is left?
George