SNBS

If you can't find arguments against what I said, say it directly. However, goodbye.

Firstly, I don't think it's fine to give up.

I'll tell you how, I think, my library can be cracked. Of course, disassembling and deobfuscating. Then, I (adversary) have to find the is-license-valid method. Then make it return... not true, but an entity containing the corresponding information. (Which means I have to examine the structure of library.)

It's all, in the current version. I don't think it's enough, so I have a task to inject license validity checks into multiple places of the library. It'll cause headache after patching the is-license-valid method because there are other checks.

(Oh, yes, after patching I have to recompile the library.)

But in other licensing libraries the process is the same! My lib (at least when I'll "split" the license check) is not worse. Do you agree?

What does my lib do better than others? Let's start with the fact I couldn't find any "others" on GitHub. All licensing libraries I saw there work with "license files" (JSON/XML/something). I challenge you to find a competitor of mine there!

Then, what does it do better than the libraries working with license files? Such libs have one serious weakness. Someone payed for a license and got a signed file. Then he gives it to 10 friends, and they have activated program with no pay. This can't occur with my lib because each license activation is registered on the remote server, and it doesn't allow you to activate a license when there are too many previous activations.

What about "I didn't identify the audience of my library" — maybe I didn't catch it? Isn't it obvious?

Currently working on the new API.

I KNOW USING DIRECT CONNECTION TO DATABASE WAS A DUMB IDEA. TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, WILL BE REPLACED WITH HTTP API IN NEXT VERSIONS. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE FEEDBACK ABOUT IT.

Publicly accessible? Well, if you share the database username and password, maybe yes.

The credentials can be taken from the disassembled source code, but I've already taken it into account. The next versions will use an HTTP API.

I don't really think, either, anybody will use a library that is almost in the state of initial development. It's the first.

Secondly, what do you want? I could use Roslyn to inject the license check into multiple parts of the library, but this is a dubious way.

It doesn't need a database on the client side. It can connect to a server-side DB.

Same things will happen with other licensing libraries (or I'm dumb). BTW, you have to disassemble the client app first! I think non-free apps are almost always obfuscated.

I know. It's another kind of licensing. I've created a library specifically for activation keys.

Please note it's only the first major version! Do you want a perfect, bug-free library in releases 1.x.x?! Your feedback was taken into account, though.

Taken into account. Maybe an HTTP API will be introduced in version 2.0.0. Thanks for leaving your feedback!

Great! But what's the difference between "play with dad" and "play with ai"? Is your dad really sitting all the time and playing Scrabble on this site?! :D

Well, isn't it just another post about unsafety of PINs like 1234?

This library is published to NuGet under ID SNBS.Licensing.ActivationKeys.

This free, open-source .NET library allows you to license your non-free applications through activation keys. Follow the quick start instructions and try it out in 5 minutes!