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 09:26 On 2009-09-29 06:55:34 -0400, Peter Brett <peter(a)peter-b.co.uk> said: > For the benefit of everyone's education, do you by any chance have the > citations to the relevant decisions to hand? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg> from the ruling: "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." which is precisely the situation with LW Personal. For shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses which have been held to be invalid, see also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Shrink-wrap_and_click-wrap_licenses> The key distinctions are when the license is presented (pre or post sale), and whether it is possible to install and/or use the software without agreeing to the license. That's why almost all such licenses now require presentation and acceptance of the license before installation can begin. Some vendors have even moved to encrypting the software so that any attempt to circumvent the agreement step and install the software without accepting the license would constitute a DMCA violation. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: John Thingstad on 29 Sep 2009 09:33 P� Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:20:36 +0200, skrev Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com>: > > That is possible. But it is also possible that there are people who > are currently paying $1000+ for the commercial version but would > happily buy the $300 version, too, and they would have less revenue if > they sold that. This is a classic problem, and a source of > inefficiency present in many markets. Some companies try to solve it > partially by allowing customers to identify themselves with signals > that are harder to fake (eg "student" editions, etc). > > Of course I don't know what the situation is and whether selling a > $300 version would be a net gain or net loss of revenue for LW, but > lacking further information, I would assume that they have thought > about pricing decisions, they don't look like a stupid company. > > Tamas I believe they are programmers, not market analyst. -------------- John Thingstad
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 29 Sep 2009 09:37 On 2009-09-29 03:47:02 -0400, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla(a)gmail.com> said: > 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? Imagine if Zipcar allowed you to drive one of their cars that automatically stopped after 5 hours which you were licensed to use only if you agreed to a license which prohibited reverse engineering. Do you think they could terminate your license if you reverse engineered and disabled the 5 hour limitation? Analogies only work if you include all the relevant details in your parallel. LW is not giving you LW personal - they're licensing you to use it. In particular, you cannot be said to own something if you can't dispose of it as you wish, if you can't give it to another person. You can't transfer your copy of LW personal to another person, read the license. The LW Personal situation is akin to being allowed to use a car, not owning it. Moreover, you don't even get to use it unless you agree to the license which specifically states that LW can terminate the license if you don't abide by it. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 12:58 Tamas K Papp wrote: > That is possible. But it is also possible that there are people who > are currently paying $1000+ for the commercial version but would > happily buy the $300 version, too, and they would have less revenue if > they sold that. This is a classic problem, and a source of > inefficiency present in many markets. The market inefficiency in this instance is being caused by a monopoly able to charge vastly more than marginal cost for its goods.
From: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 12:58
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. > > [says I'm a liar] No, you are. |