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: Nicolas Neuss on 2 Oct 2009 03:49 Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> writes: > The only difference between deleting ``trial_version=1'' and > eliminating a time limit from machine code is that you have to use > your brain more for the latter. And that's what's supposed to make it > wrong, somehow. > > If the program can be obtained free of charge, it's donation-ware, > even if it contains deliberately planted bugs which cripple it. If > that program actually contains all of the code of the full version, > you have a right to ``debug'' it to turn it into the full version, for > your own personal use (but redistribution of the hacked copy, which is > a derived work: that's copyright infringement). > > Modifying a program, without redistribution, is completely fair use. So I guess that you already TEXed the TEXbook:-) Up to now, I have restrained myself from doing so, but since you argue so convincingly, ... Nicolas
From: gnubeard on 2 Oct 2009 05:41 On Oct 2, 4:49 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > 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) You have write the C code yourself to do what I did - I've supplied no code. You seem to be implying that, because I told you that LW is susceptible to interposing gettimeofday(), that you are somehow NOT reverse engineering the code and that I did. But I didn't inspect LW. I "guessed" (really, it is so obvious that I can't even call it guessing).. wrote the code. It worked. Guessing is not reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is analyzing a system to determine its internal structure. I've done none of that. > 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. You're wrong. It is not an access mechanism. Go read the LW Personal release notes. It states clearly that the limit is there to make the program useless for commercial use. Commercial use is prohibited by the license - it does not speak of the limitations. As long as I don't use it commercially, this isn't an issue. > > 3. The owner of F had prohibited you from finding out this information > in the license agreement with a no-reverse-engineering clause. It is true that I am prohibited from figuring out the internal structure of LW by analyzing it. I am not prohibited from guessing as to what it must be doing. If I observe that I change my clock time and see LW's behavior change, that is not reverse engineering. > The _only_ way you can demonstrate that you have broken that > no-reverse-engineering clause is by publishing a crack. If my post was this: "Hey guys, you can avoid the LW timeout by using a script which sets your system clock back as needed, and LW will never prompt." Does that constitute a "crack" - the STATEMENT of that fact? Of course not. The actual script to do so might be considered a crack .. but not the discussion of it. Furthermore - does anyone even really need to be told that? Probably not. It is OBVIOUS (i.e. no reverse engineering needed). Applying the same principle so that only the LW program is affected and not the entire system is obvious too.. that is what the damn feature of the linker is for. I'm sure you still don't get it, though.
From: Dave Searles on 2 Oct 2009 10:13 gnubeard wrote: > 100% agreed on all points OK. > Big corporations becomes nameless and faceless very easily. Small > companies are much more personal, and the employees tend to be more > personally invested in their work. Of course, no company is less personal than one you only interact with via its web site. > But I'm not talking about the corporation's "feelings" being hurt (it > has none, after all), I'm talking about the individual LW programmers. You've had no contact with them. > I can imagine that one of them said "Hey, lets give out a personal > edition." .. I can't. That sort of decision is made by managers, not programmers.
From: Pillsy on 2 Oct 2009 10:17 On Oct 1, 9:23 pm, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Just download OpenMCL already. There are plenty of high-quality Common Lisp implementations that not only cost nothing to download, install, and use without limitations, but actually come with complete sourcecode for you to modify to your heart's content. Why the hell would you waste your time dicking with the time limit on the demo version of LispWorks in the first place? Sheesh, Pillsy
From: Dave Searles on 2 Oct 2009 10:17
George Neuner wrote: > On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:46:54 -0400, Dave Searles > <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> 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. That's nonsense. And if it's not, then by reading this message you implicitly agree to give be $100,000 in small, nonsequential, unmarked bills by next Tuesday. > Lispworks could sue you for copyright abridgement Nonsense. That requires making an unauthorized copy. The copy you downloaded was authorized at the time, and no further authorization is needed to install and run that copy according to Title 17, Section 117 (a) (1). Copyright has no provision for the copyright holder to revoke their authorization of a copy after the fact; in fact it has an explicit first sale doctrine saying the opposite, that a lawfully-distributed copy becomes the private property of its recipient which they can use as they see fit and resell, give away, etc.. > By hacking the software, you are also in criminal violation of the > Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1996 (DMCA). Nonsense. That has to do with circumventing copy protection. What copy protection was "hacked" in this case? > [threats deleted] I don't respond well to threats. |