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: Rainer Joswig on 1 Oct 2009 20:50 On 2 Okt., 01:44, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 7:17 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > > > So I think the pollution analogy stands up well. A society's rules are > > its public property and correspond to the park. > > By this line of reasoning, then it seems to me that if I: > > a) Performed all the same actions with respect to disabling the LW > time-out AND > b) told no one about it (i.e. didn't post here) You know what you really did? You were stealing our time with bullshit. I want my time back!
From: gnubeard on 1 Oct 2009 21:23 On Oct 2, 10:50 am, Rainer Joswig <jos...(a)lisp.de> wrote: > > You know what you really did? > > You were stealing our time with bullshit. > > I want my time back! I want a reasonably priced copy of LW or a version not retardly crippled. Guess neither one of us gets what we want, right? Yay. And you, of course, are free to not read this thread. But you do. Why? I'm off to play guitar now.
From: George Neuner on 1 Oct 2009 21:37 On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:46:54 -0400, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >Raffael Cavallaro wrote: >> On 2009-09-30 04:57:17 -0400, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla(a)gmail.com> >> said: >> >>> The point imho is that, unlike a signed contract, it is not >>> objectively verifiable that the user has read and accepted the >>> license. >> >> Civil courts in the US use the standard of "preponderance of evidence." >> This means the side whose claim is *more likely* based on evidence >> presented prevails (no need for proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" which >> is the much higher criminal standard). >> >> So courts have asked themselves which is more likely, that someone who >> installed the software was somehow completely unaware of the license >> presented, or that the user was aware of the license. > >Aware of the license is a very different kettle of fish from agreed to >the license. > >Surely you don't think that merely reading a contract, without signing >it, can bind you to its terms? The same reasoning logically must apply >to seeing a software license but avoiding clicking "I accept" by >whatever method. > >> This is why the "hack the installer" defense is pretty worthless. The >> very act of hacking the installer is evidence on the side of "the user >> knew there was a license agreement." > >I'd love to see a non-software business try that sort of argument. "He >got ahold of one of our widgets and knew we like to sell them to people >only if they sign this contract, therefore he should be bound by the >terms of that contract even though we have no evidence that he ever did >so!" Maybe going after someone who may have gotten the widget >second-hand, or who for whatever reason simply was able to purchase one >without the salesman getting his John Hancock on the dotted line. It's called a "shrink-wrap license", and by using the software the user implicitly agrees to it. The courts have already ruled on that. Lispworks could sue you for copyright abridgement (that is, you may not have technically stolen from them, but nonetheless violated their rights). By hacking the software, you are also in criminal violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1996 (DMCA). You can potentially be prosecuted both for reverse engineering the software's time lock and for disseminating information on how to defeat it. IANAL, but two of my family are IP attorneys - it would be smart to believe what I am telling you. In any case, you can verify it with your own lawyer. George
From: Madhu on 1 Oct 2009 21:51 * Kaz Kylheku <20091013102206.125(a)gmail.com> : Wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:41:31 +0000 (UTC): | Remember, if I'm hacking a program in my own privacy, that doesn't | affect anyone. But that is not all you are doing. You are publishing the results of your hacking, and making the hacks available to everyone. | Maybe I'm just doing research into cracking techniques. | | One person obtains the the trial version of a program to try it out. | | Another person obtains the the trial version of a program in order to | solve the puzzle of defeating its protection mechanisms. | | All of the ways of using the program which do not harm anyone are | fine, in a free society. The harm is clearly seen if you consider the ethical foundation on which a free society is built on. To begin with you are free not to use the product in question. The value of the product is protected (for lack of other means) by clauses in a license agreement. In using the product you have agreed not to reverse engineer the product. Having reverse engineered the product you publish the results of the reverse-engineering which destroys the value of the product, forever. Your product was licensed for personal use. Had you stopped with personal use (twiddling bits on your computer) there would be no issue with the license. But Redistributing knowledge of the crack is equivalent to redistribution of the product, as far as the value of the product to its owners is concerned. The had sought to protect this value with an agreement which is broken. By destroying this value you are attacking the basis on which free society is founded. -- Madhu
From: gnubeard on 1 Oct 2009 22:48
On Oct 2, 11:37 am, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > It's called a "shrink-wrap license", and by using the software the > user implicitly agrees to it. The courts have already ruled on that. > Lispworks could sue you for copyright abridgement (that is, you may > not have technically stolen from them, but nonetheless violated their > rights). The license provides an allowance for modification without redistribution. > By hacking the software, you are also in criminal violation of the > Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1996 (DMCA). You can potentially > be prosecuted both for reverse engineering the software's time lock > and for disseminating information on how to defeat it. My understanding of the DMCA is that it concerns itself with breaking copy control mechanisms designed to limit access to copyrighted material. Cracking a serial number authenticator would be prohibited, for example. The material IS copyrighted, but the 5-hour limit is not an access control. After the five hours are up, I can double click again, ad infinitum and it will always give me access to the material. It is not, for example, a 30-day demo which times out and ceases to allow me to access/use the copyrighted material after that time period and could be considered an access control. The 5-hour limit is a nag, not an access/authentication mechanism. I don't believe the DMCA applies. And anyhow, while I am an American, I am not residing in the States.. and as far as my adopted homelands of Australia and New Zealand go - Australian judges have ruled that, for example, a modchip to a playstation (designed to let it function in a way the designer tries to prohibit) is not a DMCA violation - because a) it is modifying personal property b) it is not breaking an access control mechanism c) it is not allowing copying / dissemination of protected works All of which can be said in this case with LW as well. As as for my lovely adopted Kiwi brothers - they put into place simply the best (as in liberal, flipping the bird to old Uncle Sam) DMCA- style regulations in the world. Their version of the law expressly allows circumvention of things such as region coding of DVDs. If you have a legally obtained copy of a DVD (I have a legally obtained copy of LW) you can circumvent whatever the hell you need to in order to use it.. even though that use is clearly against the way the manufacturer intended. Even if you're making copies for personal use. > IANAL, but two of my family are IP attorneys - it would be smart to > believe what I am telling you. In any case, you can verify it with > your own lawyer. As a matter of fact, I have talked to a lawyer friend about this - casually, over lunch. His opinion, is that since the license only forbids commericial use, and does not mention timed usage in a personal context, I have violated no law, nor the license agreement with what I have done. As to the reverse engineering clause, to my surprise, he thought it might be successfully argued in either direction, depending on the judge presiding. He doesn't specialize in IP, but still.. |