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: Tim Smith on 5 Oct 2009 22:25 In article <hadk1v$hnl$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >>> [personal attacks deleted] > >> Wrong. > > > > [says I'm a liar] > > No, you are. Ironically, by repeatedly claiming that people call you a liar and accusing them of personal attacks when they did neither, you are *now* in fact a liar. > > >>>>> such goods do not work, in the sense that a free market, responding > >>>>> to supply and demand, does not result in the optimal allocation of > >>>>> resources for intellectual goods. > >>>> It doesn't? Do you have proof or is this just you repeating an oft-heard > >>>> myth? > >>> It's standard economic theory > >> It's standard bollocks. The evidence is equivocal at best. Read Boldrin > >> and Levine [2008]. > > Provide a precise cite. > > http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm Provide a *precise* cite. That means cite to a specific page in that book that backs your claim that I was wrong when I said that a free market is not pareto efficient when dealing with goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludible. -- --Tim Smith
From: Evan I on 6 Oct 2009 05:36 Anti Vigilante <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> writes: <snip> > You know I've stayed out of this but there's a lot of 'moral high > ground' stomping going around. > > 'You didn't pay for it... you stole.' > 'You changed your C library... that's a modification of LW' > 'Pay what you get for' > > Automatons would be puzzled by this. Indeed, it is all a little bizarre, but to be expected as there are some very heated emotions about this issue. Especially from those who perceive themselves as highly rational. It seems to me that law and morality have little to do with each other and should really be considered as separate issues. In this case, having just read the preamble and the license. No commercial exploitation of product is taking place so limitations designed to prevent such are not for all intents and purposes being circumvented. Even if in principle the potential for further exploitation exists, the same could be said about the original download. Further the personal edition's stated use is personal or educational, since this is the case it's intended use is not being violated. Since the modifications are solely for his own use, he has not violated the licenses modification clause either. The only crime is one of common sense, he could have gotten a better deal by talking directly to the folks at LispWorks. Instead of trading one crippling bug for another he probably could have just eliminated his problem all together. Morally speaking, the act is questionable, on one hand the intent is to use something beyond it's capacity. But on the other hand not in a way that violates the creators intended use. Further publishing the hint about the exploit is more useful to the developers who are intimately aware of their own software than it would be to anyone who couldn't have easily figured out the exploit on their own. The injured party in this case would be anyone who had sneakily circumvented their own copy but will not be able to in the future, thanks to the OP. Further it got me interested enough in the software to download a copy, making me a potential future customer, so it has actually served the interests of the folk over at LispWorks. So, no violation of law, license, or intent. Information was presented about a flaw in a week protection scheme that is hardly useful to anyone who couldn't have figured it out themselves but is useful to anyone who wants to fix it. And free advertising was provided for LispWorks. Who loses in this situation? Besides people who won't be able to hack their copy of LispWorks in the future, should the authors read and care about this thread. Jes mah 2 cens' -- tali713
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:11 Tim Smith wrote: > In article <hadk1v$hnl$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>> [personal attacks deleted] >>>> Wrong. >>> [says I'm a liar] >> No, you are. > > [says I'm a liar] No, you are. >>>>>>> such goods do not work, in the sense that a free market, responding >>>>>>> to supply and demand, does not result in the optimal allocation of >>>>>>> resources for intellectual goods. >>>>>> It doesn't? Do you have proof or is this just you repeating an oft-heard >>>>>> myth? >>>>> It's standard economic theory >>>> It's standard bollocks. The evidence is equivocal at best. Read Boldrin >>>> and Levine [2008]. >>> Provide a precise cite. >> http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm > > Provide I just did.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:15 Evan I wrote: > The only crime is one of common sense, he could have gotten a better > deal by talking directly to the folks at LispWorks. s/talking directly to the folks at LispWorks/downloading a free software Common Lisp implementation/ > Morally speaking, the act is questionable, on one hand the intent is to > use something beyond it's capacity. Stretching the capabilities of your own personally-owned property can not logically be morally wrong, regardless of whether the thing's manufacturer would like it or not if they heard about it.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:16
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2009-10-06 05:36:48 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > >> Since >> the modifications are solely for his own use, he has not violated the >> licenses modification clause either. > > 1. The license specifically prohibits reverse engineering, full stop, > not just reverse engineering for commercial purposes. > > 2. Once he publishes any reverse engineering and circumvention methods, > as he has done here, he can no longer make the claim that what he is > doing is solely for his own personal, educational use. Reverse > engineering and circumvention for one's own educational use is one > thing. Publication of that reverse engineering and method of > circumvention is another thing, and they have very different legal > statuses. The latter should be a federally protected activity, in the interests of cybersecurity. Not allowing researchers to publish exploits/permitting vendors to muzzle researchers that discover exploits leads to "security through obscurity" and all the usual attendant problems. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog |