Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 29 Sep 2009 00:22 On 2009-09-28 17:47:48 -0400, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> said: > Of course, I am not a lawyer Which may explain why, despite 5 paragraphs of writing, you fail to mention the one pertinent legal fact, that US Federal courts have held click-through EULAs to be valid, enforceable, licenses. Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 29 Sep 2009 00:24 On 2009-09-28 17:30:24 -0400, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> said: > I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if it's an actual sale 1. It isn't a sale, since, by definition, a sale involves compensation of some sort. 2. I'm pretty sure that the click through EULA is a binding license because courts have held them to be just that. The terms of the license allow LW to terminate the license if the use violates the terms of the license. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Alessio Stalla on 29 Sep 2009 03:47 On Sep 29, 3:39 am, A.L. <alewa...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:40:18 +0200, "John Thingstad" > > > > <jpth...(a)online.no> wrote: > >På Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:35:39 +0200, skrev A.L. <alewa...(a)aol.com>: > > >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:48:02 -0700 (PDT), gnubeard > >> <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> For those annoyed with the 5-hour timeout in LispWorks Personal > >>> Edition: > > >> This is simply stealing somebody's property. > > >> A.L. > > >You seem to have some very delusional ideas about what constitutes > >stealing. > >I might recommend going with Clozure CL instead, but... > >If he thwarted the licensing system (With a license generator or the like) > >and distributed that, that would be a clear violation. > >Messing with the system time and at the same time making all the time > >functionality useless is silly, but hardly criminal. > >Your black and white interpretation of the world just makes you sound like > >a idiot.. (In my eyes.) > > >- > > This is your interpretation. It is amazing how many people represent > Bolshevik mentality. > > Posting advice how to break manufacturer's protection is more or less > the same like posting advice how to drive neighbor's Mercedes using > screwdriver. Hmm, and how is posting such advice "simply stealing somebody's property"? Do you believe that posting how to build a bomb is the same as using a bomb to kill people? > Well.... For iPod generation even wives will be common. As Vladimir > Ilych Lenin predicted. I don't follow you. > If you don't like break after 5 hours, porchase full version. If not, > not be surprised if after some time manufacturer will go belly up. > They pay their espenses selling software. No income, no software. This > is that easy. It's amazing in my eyes how people - even if experienced in software as presumably are most people in this NG - manage to reason completely differently about the same concepts, if those concepts are applied to software and the Internet instead of the "real world" (as if software wasn't real). Imagine if e.g. Ford gave away cars that automatically stop after 5 hours, and you discovered and applied a technique to circumvent this limitation, do you really believe that you would have committed a crime in this case? People have been using their intelligence to circumvent the limitations of devices for a very long time, and this has never been illegal - and it would be a bad, bad idea to render it illegal. If you don't think it's a crime, but that it merely damages Ford - Ford can change their business model if so they decide, and stop giving away free limited cars or increase the limitations or whatnot. It's not under the responsibility of the end user. You can argue that it's not sensible for end users to push the manufacturer of a product into stopping to give away free samples of the product, and I can agree to this, but that's all. Alessio
From: Petter Gustad on 29 Sep 2009 04:00 "John Thingstad" <jpthing(a)online.no> writes: > For personal use 1200 dollars is too expensive, not worth every penny. It depends. I remember I purchased Expertelligence ExperLisp for $1000 as a student around 1984 (adjust it for inflation over the past 25 years). Still I was worth it since I learned Lisp and had the joy of using it to write my compiler in Lisp as well as a small expert system to analyze transistor circuits. Petter -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: Peter Brett on 29 Sep 2009 06:55
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2009-09-28 17:57:34 -0400, Dave Searles > <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> said: > >> There are at least two problems with considering this act to form a >> contract. > > Federal Courts have considered these "problems" and rejected > them. Click-through EULAs have been held to be valid, enforceable, > licenses. For the benefit of everyone's education, do you by any chance have the citations to the relevant decisions to hand? Thanks in advance, Peter -- Peter Brett <peter(a)peter-b.co.uk> Remote Sensing Research Group Surrey Space Centre |