Hi Cutesoft,

 

I am originally placed my download in a test directory of my server, and my code works there.

 

But, now I am moving to production and have relocated the include to a better location.

 

However, I am getting the attached error when I try to include from the new folder. If I use the original folder I wrote my test code from, I get no error.

 

Is the license fixed to the folder /phpuploader is originally located in?

 

If so, is there a way to relocate the /phpuploader folder to a different directory and reset the license file the new location?

 

Thanks,

rj 

Thanks Adam.

 

However, before I do that I wanted to clarify.

 

The phpuploader code works fine on this server, without the error message above, when I run the code from the folder I originally wrote my test code in. 

 

When I first downloaded the code, I placed the phpuploader folder here:

/examples/phpfileuploader/phpuploader

 

When I include the include_phpuploader.php file from this original folder, all is OK.

 

However, the /examples folder is where I keep my sandbox stuff, and I don't run production code out of there.

 

I copied the /phpuploader folder to a different folder, /inc, so that a copy of it is here:

/inc/phpuploader

 

When I include the include_phpuploader.php file from this new folder, I get the error message.

 

It appears that the license file is somehow locked to the specific folder location I originally placed the code on my server. Why do I say that? Because it works if I include from that original folder, but gives the license error when I include from other folder I copied the code to.

 

To test this, I made an exact copy of your demo code in a different folder. You can try it below. It works fine from the original folder, but if I move the code, it works up until the finish of the upload and gives the error above.

 

Here's the demo you provide in the folder I originally copied it to (works fine):

http://www.supertopo.com/examples/phpfileuploader/demo.htm

 

Here's your exact same same demo code, copied to a different folder (works, but emits license error):

http://www.supertopo.com/test/demo.htm

 

Your thoughts?

 

rjs

 

P.S. One more piece of info. I am using the IP@ form of license.

 

P.P.S. If the code is unmoveable once I license is created, that is OK, but if so, I'd like to reset my license with the code placed in a location suitable for my production use. Thanks.  

 

 

rjs,

 

Are you sure your have exact same copy on two locations?

 

From the error message, it is indicating your are using domain license instead of IP license.

 

Can you set up FTP access of your server and send it to Adam@cutesoft.net?

 

 > Are you sure your have exact same copy on two locations?

 

100% positive.

 

In fact, I've made another copy, /test2, that is just like the /test, except that it pulls the include_phpuploader.php from the original folder I set up with /examples/phpfileuploader/phpuploader. When I make that change to the include path, /test2 works without the error, but if I leave the path to its default so it grabs the copy of the /test2/phpuploader it gives the error message.

http://www.supertopo.com/test2/demo.htm

 

The only line I changed between /test and /test2 is this:

<?php require_once "phpuploader/include_phpuploader.php" ?>

 

changed to:

<?php require_once "/usr/home/thenose/www/docs/examples/phpfileuploader/phpuploader/include_phpuploader.php" ?> 

 

With that simple change, /test2 works fine. Without it, it gives the license error just like /test. 

 

> Can you set up FTP access of your server and send it to Adam@cutesoft.net?

 

 

 

Here's a snippet from the license receipt email. 

 

You are using a domain license file instead of IP license file. The domain name of your license file is 216.218.209.18.

 

So you get the host not match error message.

Dear rspurrie,

Thanks Eric!

 

Running TellDomainOrIP.php fixed the problem.

 

rjs 

 

OK, this is going to sound odd.

 

The day I ran your test, all my tests showed the same IP address. And, suddenly the tests all worked from all locations without any error. Now I wonder if I just imagined it.

 

However, now, the same scripts give two different error messages, depending on the location of the /phpuploader folder.

 

In all cases, the IP address shown from all locations is exactly the same: 216.218.209.18

 

However, this script now produces License Error 1 (just like it was before).

http://www.supertopo.com/test2/demo.htm 

 

 

And, this script now produces License Error 4 (this one used to work just fine).

 http://www.supertopo.com/test2/demo.htm

 

 

Both scripts are running from the same domain, same IP, and using exactly the same copy of your demo code with one and only one exception: /test2 includes the /phpuploader from the location I originally downloaded to, /test uses your default include.

 

I have just re-copied the license file Karen sent, and uploaded.

 

Now I get the same error from both of the above test scripts: License error (1) Host not match!

 

I now think that I must have been using the default license file that came in the original email in the /test2 case. That license probably had a limited time window of operation. Now that I re-copied and uploaded the IP@ license file, I am getting the same host not match error from both.  

 

I have contacted Karen to ask her to regenerate my license file, as perhaps there is an issue with the one I sent. 

 

Any suggestions? 

 

 rjs

 

 

 

Dear rspurrie,

 

You purchased domain license, when you run detect script, there are two results, one is domain name and another is IP,please ignore the detected IP, that is for IP license.   Pls check your domain name, if detected domain name is 216.218.209.18, your license should work and will not throw "host not match" message.

 

you can send your ftp information to eric@cutesoft.net or you can come to live support, you can meet me at http://CuteSoft.net, click on the big blue button on top that reads "online". We are here Monday - Friday between 9:30am and 17:30pm Eastern Standard Time.

I will help you fix this issue.

 

Regards,

Eric

 

 

 

 

Hi Eric,

 

I believe that I figured out the solution today with Karen's help.

 

The answer is what Adam suggested: I needed to have purchased a different type of license in the first place.

 

In that it may be helpful for other customers, my confusion was about your licensing price tiers.

 

I thought I bought an IP-oriented license. I hadn't. 

 

I think your documentation is vague.  Perhaps you will consider revising it to add more clarity for future customers.

 

I had been under the impression that if I submitted an IP address for your $99 domain license, that all the domain variations that my users typically use would be supported (so long as they all resolved to the same IP server address).

 

To clarify, I had three domain variations, all of which resolve to the same IP, that I was interested in supporting:

www.supertopo.com

supertopo.com

dev.supertopo.com

 

All three of these resolve to the same server, and the same IP address. 

 

In fact, what I now understand from Karen is that for this to work, I should have bought your $199 IP license. 

 

While literally working, your $99 IP address license is a more than a little bit confusing, as it turns out to only work if users are accessing that IP by a URL that literally uses the IP , for example http://216.218.209.18 rather than a domain name that resolves to that IP such as http://supertopo.com. Since users don't typically access my site by IP (or any site by IP), I think this license option is very confusing.
 

 It might be better for your customers is you made it more clear that IP address licenses are simply $199, and eliminate the [useless] $99 IP license (and associated confusion about domain names that resolve to the IP address). I suspect that anyone who wants an IP related license wants the terms you offer for $199, not the fools-gold of your $99 option.  I for one, would have been much happier to have paid $199 from the get-go and avoided the whole confusion and time-suck I have fallen into related to your $99 IP license.

 

My hypothesis is that there is almost no one out there who would find your $99 domain license by IP to be useful in practice, and a significant number of customers who, like me, will buy that $99 option by mistake. And, like me, they will only figure it out after a frustrating debugging process realize that they should have purchased the $199 license in the first place.

 

I think you can consider this issue resolved for me, but I hope you modify your license descriptions to enhance clarity for the benefit of future customers.

 

rj 

 

P.S. One other piece of feedback. I find your price of $199 a bit steep for my use. While I am buying, I am not happy. I think it is a bit unfair, and somewhat gouging your customers, to ask them to pay 2x for a set of domains that actually resolve to the exact same IP and the serve the exact same client user-base. I've paid it because I have already spent a lot of time getting the code to work. However, I am doing so noting my complaint. I'm frankly disinclined to buy more from Cutesoft due to a feeling that your pricing model in this case is unfair and unreasonable, and I presume it is probably similarly structured in other cases.  You may not like this kind of feedback, but I would hope you take it under consideration when you re-evaluate your pricing in the future. I would guess I'm not the only one to feel this way.