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: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 1 Oct 2009 22:59 Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> writes: > * 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. So in a way, you're arguing that there's more value in not using it than in using it? > 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. You're saying that this software was a secret and that by revealing some bit of information about this secret lessens its value as a secret. Well in that case why the onwer of the secret diffused it in the first place? A shared secret is no secret. > 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. Speaking of foundations: One day a group of eminent scientists got together and decided that Man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, âGod, weâve decided that we no longer need You. Weâre to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why donât You just retire?â God listened very patiently to the man and then said, âVery well, but first, how about this, letâs have a Man-making contest.â To which the scientist replied, âOkay, great!â But God added, âNow, weâre going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.â The scientist said, âSure, no problemâ and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, âNo, no, no -â You go get your own dirt!â -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Madhu on 1 Oct 2009 23:49 * (Pascal J. Bourguignon) <87ws3ewlfh.fsf(a)galatea.local> : Wrote on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:59:14 +0200: | Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> writes: | |> * 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. | | So in a way, you're arguing that there's more value in not using it | than in using it? How does that reasoning follow? I was talking of the value which the product has to its owners which is destroyed by the actions that Kaz is advocating. The product has another type of value for licensee of the product who is using it. The license agreement protects the value for the owner while providing the value for licensee (user). If you do not want to agree to the license agreement, you are free not to use the product, and you will not destroy value of the product to its owner. |> 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. | | You're saying that this software was a secret and that by revealing | some bit of information about this secret lessens its value as a | secret. | | Well in that case why the onwer of the secret diffused it in the first | place? A shared secret is no secret. I do not know what secret you are talking about. The product is freely available for download (subject to license restrictions). The operational details of link loader are known. So like I said: |> 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. The poster has reverse engineering a product in violation of the license agreement and published the results with an intent to destroy its value (the value it had for its owners). His intent may include destroying value of the product to the users; this will happen if the owners discontinue making the product available because their interests cannot be protected by license agreements. Or the value to the user will be diminished if they add more technical restrictions (as the poster had suggested in his original post) in consequence of the posters actions. -- Madhu
From: Kaz Kylheku on 2 Oct 2009 01:03 On 2009-10-02, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > > * 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. So we agree that if such work is unpublished, it's not wrong? I don't think it's wrong even if it's published. If I tell you ``change byte N of file F to value V'', is that statement a derived work of file F? If not, no infringment is taking place. I don't think it's a derived work, because it doesn't cite anything from the file. And note that every one of the users of that hack requires a licensed copy in order to be able to apply the hack. No exchange among a set of people, all of whom have a legally obtained copy of something, can constitute infringment. If you and I both have seen the same movie or read the same novel, we can't possibly be infringing if we discuss it with each other. >| 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. There is no harm because the program costs zero dollars. Zero dollars means zero actual damages. > 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. Any of those clauses which don't have to do with 1) copying the program being forbidden etc, and 2) liability disclaiming are complete bullshit that you can ignore. > In using the product you have agreed not to reverse engineer the > product. No I haven't. > Having reverse engineered the product you publish the results of the > reverse-engineering which destroys the value of the product, forever. No. What destroys the value of the product is giving it away. The demo version has all of the code as the full one. The vendor has given it away They did that because they know that the product has little value in a world which is flooded with free content. > 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. Make up your mind: either there is an issue, or there isn't. > 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. Giving away the program is a damn poor, poor way of protecting its value! A properly formed trial version of a program is crippled by the /actual/ exclusion of the core features that constitute the bulk of its value. When it comes to development tools, the core feature which constitutes their value is the ability to develop and ship software. The value of LW is protected because even if you hack the limited version, that doesn't entitle you to produce shipping programs. If you ship the hacked run-time, you are then redistributing an unauthorized derived work. You could get around it by getting users to independently download LW and apply a hack. Well, good luck with that! So, I suspect that the LW people don't care about people cracking the personal edition. It is of no consequence. Those crackers will come around one day when they actually want to ship an application. If not having the 5 hour limit in their face helps them get there, what does it matter, right?
From: Madhu on 2 Oct 2009 01:47 * Kaz Kylheku <20091013190941.784(a)gmail.com> : Wrote on Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:03:15 +0000 (UTC): | If I tell you ``change byte N of file F to value V'', is that | statement a derived work of file F? | | If not, no infringment is taking place. But you are not addressing my point which is your infringement of the no-reverse-engineering clause. 1. By providing this information to me, you are letting me use F in a way which I would not have been able to use (here: get rid of a limitation) 2. This said limitation was intended and put in place by the owner of F, [alleged by me] as a means of protecting his value. 3. The owner of F had prohibited you from finding out this information in the license agreemment with a no-reverse-engineering clause. My allegation is that by providing this information you are causing loss of value to the owner of F (in point 2). Of course only the owner of F can decide what constitutes a loss of value and how to pursue it. My claim is that the _only_ way he could protect that loss of value is by placing the no-reverse-engineering clause. The _only_ way you can demonstrate that you have broken that no-reverse-engineering clause is by publishing a crack. [snip] |> The harm is clearly seen if you consider the ethical foundation on |> which a free society is built on. | | There is no harm because the program costs zero dollars. | | Zero dollars means zero actual damages. You are not counting that the a potential for non-zero dollars being replaced by zero dollars constitutes damage. In any case damage to society is usually not billable. |> 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. | | Any of those clauses which don't have to do with 1) copying the | program being forbidden etc, and 2) liability disclaiming are complete | bullshit that you can ignore. | |> In using the product you have agreed not to reverse engineer the |> product. | | No I haven't. Your defendent, the OP clearly had, when he started using the product. |> Having reverse engineered the product you publish the results of the |> reverse-engineering which destroys the value of the product, forever. | | No. What destroys the value of the product is giving it away. The | demo version has all of the code as the full one. The vendor has | given it away They did that because they know that the product has | little value in a world which is flooded with free content. Again I am not saying your notion of what constitutes value (or mine) coincides with what the value of the owner of the product. |> 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. | | Make up your mind: either there is an issue, or there isn't. What isn't clear? The license prohibits reverse engineering and permits personal use. There is no issue as long as you are the only beneficiary of legal use. Instead 1. reverse engineered the product, and 2. proved it by making the detailed workings of the product to others (this is no longer personal), with an intent to destroy value of the product. So now there is an issue. |> 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. | | Giving away the program is a damn poor, poor way of protecting its | value! These and other points you mention below are points of view that do not impact why what you are advocating (publishing cracks) -- Madhu
From: Madhu on 2 Oct 2009 02:49
[copy-edited supersede ] * Kaz Kylheku <20091013190941.784(a)gmail.com> : Wrote on Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:03:15 +0000 (UTC): | If I tell you ``change byte N of file F to value V'', is that | statement a derived work of file F? | | If not, no infringment is taking place. But you are not addressing my point which is your infringement of the no-reverse-engineering clause. 1. By providing this information to me, you are letting me use F in a way which I would not have been able to use (here: get rid of a limitation) 2. This said limitation was intended and put in place by the owner of F, [alleged by me] as a means of protecting his value. 3. The owner of F had prohibited you from finding out this information in the license agreement with a no-reverse-engineering clause. My allegation is that by providing this information you are causing loss of value to the owner of F (in point 2). Of course only the owner of F can decide what constitutes a loss of value and how to pursue it. My claim is that the _only_ way he could protect that loss of value is by placing the no-reverse-engineering clause. The _only_ way you can demonstrate that you have broken that no-reverse-engineering clause is by publishing a crack. [snip] |> The harm is clearly seen if you consider the ethical foundation on |> which a free society is built on. | | There is no harm because the program costs zero dollars. | | Zero dollars means zero actual damages. You are not counting that the a potential for non-zero dollars being replaced by zero dollars constitutes damage. In any case damage to society is usually not billable. |> 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. | | Any of those clauses which don't have to do with 1) copying the | program being forbidden etc, and 2) liability disclaiming are complete | bullshit that you can ignore. | |> In using the product you have agreed not to reverse engineer the |> product. | | No I haven't. Your defendant, the OP clearly had, when he started using the product. |> Having reverse engineered the product you publish the results of the |> reverse-engineering which destroys the value of the product, forever. | | No. What destroys the value of the product is giving it away. The | demo version has all of the code as the full one. The vendor has | given it away They did that because they know that the product has | little value in a world which is flooded with free content. Again I am not saying your notion of what constitutes value (or mine) coincides with the value of the owner of the product. |> 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. | | Make up your mind: either there is an issue, or there isn't. What isn't clear? The license prohibits reverse engineering and permits personal use. There is no issue as long as you are the only beneficiary of legal use. Instead you 1. reverse engineered the product, and 2. proved it by making the detailed workings of the product available to others (this is no longer personal), with an intent to destroy value of the product. So now there is an issue. |> 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. | | Giving away the program is a damn poor, poor way of protecting its | value! These and other points you mention below are points of view that do not impact why what you are advocating (i.e. publishing cracks) is harmful -- Madhu |