Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: gnubeard on 26 Sep 2009 20:50 On Sep 26, 6:02 pm, Rainer Joswig <jos...(a)lisp.de> wrote: > On 26 Sep., 08:17, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 26, 12:15 am, kodifik <kodi...(a)eurogaran.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > To the LispWorks crew: a better way of managing this would be to > > > > either statically link your own gettimeofday(), or at least draw in > > > > the gettimeofday() function yourself, right from the system library > > > > into your own function pointer so that it can't be hijacked as easily. > > > > They could always be found ways to play with the primary time source > > > perceived by the software. > > > > I once had an Allegro free edition past its expiry date in a Windogs > > > box > > > with no possible internet connection: One just had to twiddle the > > > taskbar clock > > > by one whole month or year back, and leave the clock widow opened to > > > do the reverse > > > once the software had started. > > > Yes, such naive methods are easy to defeat. There are ways to do > > fairly effective time-locking for the case of a 5-hour run time. > > Nothing is unbeatable, of course - but that usually isn't the goal > > anyhow. Usually you aren't interested in a nearly unbeatable security > > system. Rather you are satisfied with a security system which is > > difficult enough to defeat to be a deterrent. > > > For the $1k+ price tag, if I were LispWorks, I'd want a security > > mechanism which would require about a weeks worth of serious hacking > > to defeat - not 15-20 minutes of casual playing around. Then again, > > the market for people interested in LispWorks is small enough that > > they don't really need to worry about serious cracking / piracy. > > The LispWorks Personal edition is not the same as a full LispWorks > with a 5 hours limit. Defeating the time limit of the Personal Edition > does not get you the LispWorks Professional or Enterprise product. Agreed. I don't need professional/enterprise. The heap-size limit, for example is of no concern to me. > What would be a price where you would start thinking of buying > LispWorks for your hobby? Actually quite a lot hobbyists bought > LispWorks, because it is easy to use and has extensive GUI > capabilities. At a sub-$300 price point, I'd buy right away. Limit the heap size if you like, just give me the ability to build and distribute freeware apps if I want.. and of course, no nags or timeouts. Drop SQL support, probably a few other things. I'd consider up to $500, depending on what I actually get on my chosen platform.
From: gnubeard on 26 Sep 2009 21:19 On Sep 27, 10:40 am, Alain Picard <Dr.Alain.Pic...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I suspect Lispwork's only reason for offering the 5-hour limited > edition is to allow you to come to a determination of whether or > not the product is suitable to your needs, so you can decide if > you're willing to purchase it or not. YOUR reasons for circumventing > such limit are utterly irrelevant. To you, clearly, my reasons are irrelevant. To me, naturally, my reasons ARE quite relevant. I fail to see how this has any bearing on the discussion. Also consider that the LispWorks offers a personal edition - not an evaluation, or demo. It is a limited copy of their software for personal use. And it is NOT just a time limited enterprise or professional version. There are other limitations (lack of application delivery, heap size, maybe some others I'm not even aware of) besides the timeout. I don't need a larger heap size. I don't need to deliver applications. I just need the software to run a bit longer. > > Nope. I'm not a professional programmer, nor a professional musician. > > Just a geek who spends more than 5-hours at a time mixing up two > > enjoyable hobbies. > > Ah. Well, then, you've determined that you don't want to shell out > the money for that software for the purposes of your hobby, right? I've determined that I don't want to shell out over a $1000 dollars, yes. If they offered a product more in line with what I'm willing to pay, I'd be happy to purchase it. While I don't NEED application delivery - it might be come in handy a few times. I don't need a larger heap, but it would be nice to know that I don't really have to worry about hitting the ceiling. But it isn't worth $1000 to me. > I'm kind of amazed that anyone would have have the audacity to discuss > how to defeat the meagre circumvention devices in that software, which > are clearly there just as a reminder to "be honest". What amazes me is that people like you believe that your moral code is in some way absolute, and clearly when other people act according to a different code it elicits an emotional response from you. A superiority complex, perhaps. Mild autism, maybe. I don't know you so I can't really tell. Suffice it to say, I am not bothered by writing a bit of code to circumvent dumb limitations. You're right that the protection is meager - and considering how easy it is to make it more difficult to circumvent, if Lispworks was serious about me not using it for more than 5 hours at a time - they could have easily done so probably by investing as much time, or less, that I spent writing the code to work around it. I've spent more time responding to you, for instance, than it took me to write that work-around. Lispworks has lost no money directly because of me. I won't pay the high price tag, and I wont distribute code to crack their software. If they offered a package that met my needs, for a price I'm willing to pay, I'd pay for it. They DO _ALMOST_ offer such a package. It is called LispWorks Personal. Using this package on my machine is ALMOST what I want. I've modified MY machine (I haven't modified the Lispworks package AT ALL) to work the way I want. If you're offended by that, as I said in my original post - I'm sorry. > You ARE aware that there are high quality Free (as in libre) lisps > out there, right? Yes, of course. How is that relevant to LispWorks?
From: gnubeard on 26 Sep 2009 21:29 On Sep 26, 6:06 pm, Pascal Costanza <p...(a)p-cos.net> wrote: > How much did your guitar cost? About $200 USD for the guitar. I built my own amp, and I've dropped a total of probably another $150-200 on a couple of used pedals, cables and such. The whole rig is much less than a LispWorks license, if that is what you're asking.
From: gnubeard on 27 Sep 2009 03:19 On Sep 27, 11:17 am, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > There's a copyright. The owner of the copyright has the right to > determine who may copy or not their software, and of course, they're > allowed to put additionnal constraints against this right of copy they > give you, such as that of not using their software for more than five > hours in a row. Yes, but the 5-hour limit is not referenced at all in the LispWorks SLA. Therefore it is a technical limitation, and not a contractual one. The contractual obligation laid out in the SLA is that LispWorks Personal is not to be used for commerical purposes. The various limitations in Personal Edition are technical attempts to enforce this. Circumventing one, of even ALL, of those limitations, would not violate the SLA unless it is ACTUALLY used in a commercial environment, OR the modified edition is redistributed to a third party. Furthermore, I've quoted section 5 of that SLA here with emphasis on a particularly interesting sentence. It would seem, from this section, that I am explicitly entitled to hack up my own copy of LispWorks Personal any way I choose. I am, however, forbidden to distribute that modified version. While I would argue that I have not modified LispWorks, even if the counter point is taken and the claim is made that a run-time preloaded library constitutes modification, that is A-OK by the terms of the license, for my own use. From the SLA (emphasis is my own): 5. Copying, Modification and Distribution. You may not copy the Software except as necessary to exercise your rights under this Agreement and to make one (1) copy of the Software in machine readable form for back-up or archival purposes only. You may not translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create derivative works based on the materials, except as expressly permitted by the law of this Agreement. **** You may modify the Software and/or merge it into another program solely for your use in accordance with this Agreement. ***** Any portion of the Software merged into another program will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except for the distribution of runtime versions of the software ("Runtimes") in accordance with the following paragraph, this license does not permit the distribution of the Software, or any part thereof, to any third party.
From: Tamas K Papp on 27 Sep 2009 03:40
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:19:13 -0700, gnubeard wrote: > On Sep 27, 11:17 am, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) > wrote: > >> There's a copyright. The owner of the copyright has the right to >> determine who may copy or not their software, and of course, they're >> allowed to put additionnal constraints against this right of copy they >> give you, such as that of not using their software for more than five >> hours in a row. > > Yes, but the 5-hour limit is not referenced at all in the LispWorks SLA. > Therefore it is a technical limitation, and not a contractual one. The > contractual obligation laid out in the SLA is that LispWorks Personal is You mean that if I don't post a note on my apartment door stating that "No one shall circumvent the safety mechanisms of this door either by picking the lock, utilizing crowbars, excessive physical force, or any other means.", burglars are free to enter? Sorry, didn't know that. We live and learn. Gee, I know it is not gonna happen, but now I really wish that LW went after you. I would like to see the face of the judge when you are explaining this in court. Tamas |