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: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 12:59 Peter Brett wrote: > 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. >> [says I'm a liar] > > For the benefit of everyone's education, do you by any chance have the > citations to the relevant decisions to hand? Since I'm not actually a liar, that seems doubtful.
From: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 13:01 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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." Ludicrous. A "contract" negotiated at gunpoint, and with no quid pro quo, can't possibly be considered valid by any SANE jurisprudence. > 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. Does not make sense. Once you have the installer you ALREADY HAVE a lawfully-obtained copy, and under Title 17 Section 117 (a) (1) ALREADY HAVE a right to actually install and use it WITHOUT permission from the copyright holder. Agreeing to the "license" trades away rights you'd otherwise have (e.g. reverse engineering is fair use) in exchange for what? Not the right to install the software -- you already HAVE that. What, then?
From: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 13:05 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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 I've just explained why it is not, or at least should not, be binding.
From: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 13:07 A.L. wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:48:02 -0700 (PDT), gnubeard > <gnubeard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> For those annoyed with the 5-hour timeout in LispWorks Personal >> Edition: > > This is simply stealing somebody's property. Oh, really? If so, then you should be able to identify an object that someone no longer has, but used to have, because of the purported act of theft.
From: Dave Searles on 29 Sep 2009 13:10
A.L. wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:40:18 +0200, "John Thingstad" > <jpthing(a)online.no> wrote: > >> P� Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:35:39 +0200, skrev A.L. <alewando(a)aol.com>: >> >>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:48:02 -0700 (PDT), gnubeard >>> <gnubeard(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. Yes, such as, for instance, yourself. You're the one who believes in state-supported and state-enforced interventions in the free market such as copyright after all. > 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. Nonsense. If you steal a neighbor's Mercedes, that neighbor no longer has a Mercedes. If you copy someone's copy of LispWorks, everyone who already had one STILL has one. Nothing was taken. > 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. Red Hat seems to be able to get by quite nicely without doing anything of the sort. |