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 13:14 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. That's a nice piece of circular reasoning there. It's not yours, they're just licensing it. Why? Because the license says you can't transfer your copy. When you first download it, though, what you have is clearly yours to do with as you please. You clicked a link, you received a gift with no strings attached. The so called "license" is only presented AFTER you already OWN it. How can you possibly consider it possible for a piece of your property to "divorce" you and revert to some other ownership merely by robotically saying that it's doing so? How can you possibly square that with the concept of property rights that is central to capitalism? Are you a communist, Raffael?
From: Alessio Stalla on 29 Sep 2009 13:54 On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > > On 2009-09-29 06:55:34 -0400, Peter Brett <pe...(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? Probably the installer is not considered a copy of the software, but a medium for getting the copy, like e.g. the company website is. I'm not saying I think this is sane - in my opinion a contract should ideally always involve two human beings and a way to verify with 100% accuracy that they both actually agreed to the contract. Granting an automated mechanism (like a software) the right to decide whether a contract has been agreed or not is very dangerous as it makes the parties be on different levels - whoever writes the software gets to decide how and when the contract is considered to be signed, and can in theory revoke it at any time. My copy of X stops working and says I haven't accepted the license, how can I prove I did accept it? Alessio
From: Alessio Stalla on 29 Sep 2009 15:14 On Sep 29, 3:37 pm, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-29 03:47:02 -0400, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...(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. Ok, very good points. My analogy wasn't correct.
From: Kaz Kylheku on 29 Sep 2009 15:14 On 2009-09-28, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-28 13:09:03 -0400, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> said: > >> 1. The user in question has not entered into any formal contract with the >> copyright holder. > > This is where you go wrong. It's only possible to install the software > via the downloaded installer. The installer won't run until you click > the "Agree" button, agreeing to the license (which I've been quoting > from). US Federal courts have upheld the validity of these sorts of > click through EULAs. You can hack the installer to get rid of the button, or simply edit the license to take out clauses you disagree with and then use the button to agree to the modified license. By doing that, you are modifying a copyrighted work. But copyright does not apply because you are not publishing it. You have not gained access to, and tampered with, someone one else's storage device. You are manipulating the binary digits stored in a device which you own. That is your right. For instance, suppose you don't want to install the software and you delete it. Your filesystem will then overwrite those disk blocks with something else. According to the typical EULA, this is a forbidden use! Software /Use/ (as opposed to redistribution) licenses are complete bullshit that nobody needs to take seriously whatsoever (and, luckily, few do). Use agreements make sense for rental equipment, not for something you own such as a copy of some string of symbols, or other information signal. Rented equipment undergoes depreciation with use; it is returned to the original owner in a deteriorated condition (however slightly). Moreover, while the equipment is rented out, it is unavailable for use by the owner. While it is rented out, the owner has no opportunity to use the equipment, or to loan it to some other party.
From: Kaz Kylheku on 29 Sep 2009 15:43
On 2009-09-29, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> 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. > > Federal Courts have considered these "problems" and rejected them. > Click-through EULAs have been held to be valid, enforceable, licenses. In what kinds of cases? What would you be in court /for/, as someone who is not redistributing software, hacked or otherwise? |