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: gnubeard on 2 Oct 2009 22:33 On Oct 3, 12:17 am, Pillsy <pillsb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 I prefer LW and CAPI. It isn't like I downloaded it, and did this the same day. I've been using LW, with the 5-hour limit, quite happily for some time. The 5-hour limit never affected me until rather recently in my specific project (the audio filters).. it was only after it annoyed me that I took the 10 minutes of time to defeat it. I actually DID think, briefly, about switching to SBCL or something else for this project. But then I lose CAPI, and have to spend a bunch of time .. MUCH more than a few minutes.. dicking around with details of building a GUI for my filters on some other Lisp. Then I thought - "well, I wonder if simply interposing gettimeofday() would work" - save me the time dicking around with some other Lisp, and let me keep my existing code intact. It worked. I'm all set. This was "hello world" simple - compiled the first time (so short, no typos). Worked the first time - trivial. So trivial, I almost didn't post about it. Then I remembered the aversion to C that many Lispers have, so that this may not occur to them.. or maybe they never even encountered this feature of the linker. But if it DIDNT work, I'd probably be using a different Lisp.. I certainly wouldn't have invested any real time into it.
From: George Neuner on 3 Oct 2009 00:29 On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:17:58 -0400, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >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. No it does not. Bypassing the time lock on the software is a violation of the publisher's right to restrict usage. >> 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? DMCA does not apply only to copy protection. It applies equally to any software intended to restrict usage in violation of the publisher's licence. That includes such software features as time locks. >> [threats deleted] > >I don't respond well to threats. I did not threaten you. However I am about to defame you ... YOU ARE A CLUELESS IDIOT. George
From: Dave Searles on 3 Oct 2009 00:49 gnubeard wrote: > On Oct 3, 12:17 am, Pillsy <pillsb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 > > I prefer LW and CAPI. It isn't like I downloaded it, and did this the > same day. I've been using LW, with the 5-hour limit, quite happily for > some time. The 5-hour limit never affected me until rather recently in > my specific project (the audio filters).. it was only after it annoyed > me that I took the 10 minutes of time to defeat it. > > I actually DID think, briefly, about switching to SBCL or something > else for this project. But then I lose CAPI, and have to spend a bunch > of time .. MUCH more than a few minutes.. dicking around with details > of building a GUI for my filters on some other Lisp. > > Then I thought - "well, I wonder if simply interposing gettimeofday() > would work" - save me the time dicking around with some other Lisp, > and let me keep my existing code intact. It worked. I'm all set. This > was "hello world" simple - compiled the first time (so short, no > typos). Worked the first time - trivial. So trivial, I almost didn't > post about it. Then I remembered the aversion to C that many Lispers > have, so that this may not occur to them.. or maybe they never even > encountered this feature of the linker. > > But if it DIDNT work, I'd probably be using a different Lisp.. I > certainly wouldn't have invested any real time into it. The real problem is you invested a lot of time in a proprietary GUI library. In fact, the real problem is the lack of a widely-adopted, quality portable open source CL GUI library. (JVM-hosted Lisps should have access to Swing, which has a compatible open source version in OpenJDK.)
From: George Neuner on 3 Oct 2009 01:20 On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 19:48:36 -0700 (PDT), gnubeard <gnubeard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. That's only part of it. "Copyright" is a broad term that encompasses a number of conferred rights, only one of which is the right to control copying of your work. Copyright laws also grants some broad rights (with certain exceptions) to control who has access to and who may profit from your work. DMCA criminalized circumvention of software usage controls, including such things as encryption, enabling keys, and time based lockouts. It also criminalized dissemination of information which may allow others to circumvent those controls. >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. It is an access restriction - you can't access the software for more than 5 contiguous hours. The fact that you can immediately restart the software is irrelevant. >I don't believe the DMCA applies. The DMCA applies in that this person disseminated information about how to circumvent the lock. His own personal circumvention is arguably not criminal, but he nonetheless violated the rights of the publisher and could be sued civilly. Except in cases of criminal violation of DMCA provisions, all copyright suits are civil. Prior to the 1996 DMCA, there were no criminal penalties in copyright law at all. >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 long as the mod-chip did not permit running illegally obtained software, the American courts would probably agree. Cracking game consoles to run Linux, etc. has already been deemed acceptable use. >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. US copyright law does not prevent you from making personal copies either - that is expressly permitted under the archival use exception. Prohibitions against making personal copies come from contract law - ie. the provisions of the license agreement. >> 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. I, and I think most courts, would also agree with that. The problem comes when you go around telling others how to do it. >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.. Under US Copyright law, reverse engineering of software is allowed in 2 cases: for personal education, and for the specific task of replicating functionality on a new platform (similar to the provisions in patent law). Under the current laws, pretty much any other use of reverse engineering on software is now criminal. IANAL, George
From: gnubeard on 3 Oct 2009 05:10
On Oct 3, 2:29 pm, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > No it does not. Bypassing the time lock on the software is a > violation of the publisher's right to restrict usage. The publisher doesn't restrict bypassing the time-lock. The publisher restricts non-commericial use. Running the software close in time to the day light saving times to gain an extra hour of use certainly isn't infringement. Manually, or even scripting your clock to roll back similarly doesn't violate. Recompiling your own, complete glibc with the required patch to gettimeofday() doesnt infringe anything. And neither does loading a dynamic library. You're high if you think otherwise. > DMCA does not apply only to copy protection. It applies equally to > any software intended to restrict usage in violation of the > publisher's licence. That includes such software features as time > locks. The DMCA concerns itself with copyright, and the mechanisms of distribution and access to copyrighted materials. A time-lock is a copyright protection mechanism when it is, for example, a 30-day evaluation time-out. You are _licensed_ to use the software, for 30 DAYS, and NO LONGER. Period. Breaking that time lock gives you access to the software outside your LICENSED PERIOD OF USE, and IS INFRINGEMENT. Fire up an uncracked 30-day evaluation after the time- out period, and the software wont work anymore. Ever. Crack the lock, and you're using it outside your 30-day licensed period, and clearly you are infringing. However, LW Personal is NOT such an evaluation. After the 5-hours are up, I can fire up LW again. And it works. Forever. The license doesn't mention only being able to use it in five-hour chunks before restart - it just says don't use it for commercial use. The 5-hour time out, and OTHER limitations were put in place to prevent people from using the software in a commercial environment. LW says, EXACTLY that, in their release notes for the software. You're not looking at LW Personal, and its license IN PARTICULAR - you are saying "time locks are protection mechanisms. Breaking them is a DMCA violation" .. which is bullshit. SOME time locks are protection mechanisms. LW's is not. |