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: Alessio Stalla on 29 Sep 2009 16:24 On Sep 29, 9:14 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-28, Raffael Cavallaro > > <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > > On 2009-09-28 13:09:03 -0400, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...(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). The problem is that they are increasingly being enforced by software (e.g. DRM) and laws that insanely decree that software is law itself (in certain countries it is a *crime* to *attempt* circumvent DRM, let alone succeed doing it). > 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. I completely agree.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 29 Sep 2009 18:32 On 2009-09-29 16:24:10 -0400, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla(a)gmail.com> said: > I completely agree. I doubt that courts would, and what courts hold is the only relevant point. They've held click-through licenses to be valid and enforceable. The very fact that someone might hack the installer and circumvent the license approval step is in itself proof that the user was aware that there was a license agreement for the software. That's why no one makes this hack-the-license-approval argument in a real court. Awareness of the agreement (or lack thereof) is the crucial point in court holdings in this area. What courts have held to be an exception is when the user is arguably *unaware* that there is a license agreement, when the software is made available by the copyright holder for installation and/or use without the need to explicitly agree to a license. In these cases, courts have held that any license unilaterally imposed by the copyright holder is not valid. But of course, that isn't the case with LW personal, where you do have to agree to the license before you can use the software. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: gnubeard on 29 Sep 2009 21:26 On Sep 28, 11:12 pm, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-28 08:41:54 -0400, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> said: > > 1. But you've already posted here in a public forum that your reason > for using a different version of gettimeofday was an attempt to reverse > engineer and modify the behavior of LW. Yes, I had an intention to modify (the LW personal license grants me that right). I do not have an intention to reverse engineer, and I do not believe what I did can really be considered reverse engineering, even if I did learn a bit about the inner workings of LW in the process. If you write Lisp code that accesses private/internal LW functions, and learn something about the internals of LW in the process - that isn't reverse engineering. > 2. Using a debug library or tool to log calls made by LW in order to > see how it works would quite likely also been seen as a violation of > the no reverse engineering clause. If it were specifically to see how LW operates, I agree. But if it is to examine/debug the underlying C library it is not - despite the fact that you may learn about LW in the process.
From: Tamas K Papp on 30 Sep 2009 03:29 On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:32:43 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2009-09-29 16:24:10 -0400, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla(a)gmail.com> > said: > >> I completely agree. > > I doubt that courts would, and what courts hold is the only relevant > point. They've held click-through licenses to be valid and enforceable. > The very fact that someone might hack the installer and circumvent the > license approval step is in itself proof that the user was aware that > there was a license agreement for the software. That's why no one makes > this hack-the-license-approval argument in a real court. Awareness of > the agreement (or lack thereof) is the crucial point in court holdings > in this area. > > What courts have held to be an exception is when the user is arguably > *unaware* that there is a license agreement, when the software is made > available by the copyright holder for installation and/or use without > the need to explicitly agree to a license. In these cases, courts have > held that any license unilaterally imposed by the copyright holder is > not valid. But of course, that isn't the case with LW personal, where > you do have to agree to the license before you can use the software. The whole thread reminds me of a civil law class that I have taken (IANAL, but it seemed -- and turned out to be -- interesting). It was a course for non-law students, most had a mathematics/science background. _All_ questions from the audience were like this, students thinking that laws are like an algorithm that they can hack. The professor was very understanding and actually stopped to explain that legal systems don't work that way -- common sense is present in both Common Law and continental European systems, and you can't expect to get away with technical tricks like that. Tamas
From: gnubeard on 30 Sep 2009 04:21
On Sep 30, 5:29 pm, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The whole thread reminds me of a civil law class that I have taken > (IANAL, but it seemed -- and turned out to be -- interesting). It was > a course for non-law students, most had a mathematics/science > background. _All_ questions from the audience were like this, > students thinking that laws are like an algorithm that they can hack. > The professor was very understanding and actually stopped to explain > that legal systems don't work that way -- common sense is present in > both Common Law and continental European systems, and you can't expect > to get away with technical tricks like that. Well, yes - of course! That is what judges and juries are for - to bring common sense to bear on particular situations. To me, it is common sense that in a software package given away with a perpetual license (i.e. this is NOT an evaluation demo designed to provoke a sale. It is a license for personal, non-commercial USE - not testing) that I am free to modify it on my own machine, so long as I don't break copyright laws by redistributing it. Applying the LD_PRELOAD technique to the 30-day evaluation copy of LW, or other packages would clearly violate the license and intended use. Those packages are _licensed_ for 30 days - and thats it. LW Personal is _licensed_ for as long as I desire to use it non-commercially. The 5-hour restriction is a technical limitation, and my kludge gets around that limitation. I really don't feel this is an infringement on the license. If I did, I wouldn't have done it. |