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 7 Oct 2009 21:59 In article <hahbe8$otc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >>>> 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. I must have missed it. What was the page number? -- --Tim Smith
From: gnubeard on 8 Oct 2009 00:12 On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-06 05:36:48 -0400, Evan I <tali...(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. Say this all you like - and it is true. But I didn't reverse engineer anything. If my C code relied on any reverse engineered principles from LW, one would expect that it would only work against LW. But, in fact, it will work against any time-based protection reliant on gettimeofday(). A kind person noticed this thread, and pointed me to an article published a few years ago in 2600 magazine, with code. It is a generic library that interposes gettimeofday() along with some other common functions which enable the single library to defeat the time locks of many such programs. The code in question has NOTHING to do with LW, and indeed can be made into a generic crack against virtually any program (i.e. doesn't rely on reverse engineering). So the C code in question isn't derived from reverse engineering. Nor was it even used as a tool to perform reverse engineering - because after it constrained the clock to a few minute interval, LW no longer prompts - so there is no reason to fuss or investigate the mechanisms that LW uses. You really are STRETCHING to find a way in which I violated the license. You must certainly know that. Is it so threatening to conceive that, in this case, the license may not prohibit such actions?
From: gnubeard on 8 Oct 2009 00:15 On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-06 05:36:48 -0400, Evan I <tali...(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. > > -- > Raffael Cavallaro Oh, and by the way - you are right about the different legal status of the two. You should read up on the reverse engineering that was performed on the original IBM PC/XT platform to produce the first clones of the era. The short of it: The guys who reverse engineered the IBM XT were prohibited, legally, from producing a clone based on their research. But they were NOT legally prohibited from publishing papers about their findings. Compaq, the first clone maker, used those papers to build an IBM compatible PC. No one got sued. Because it isn't as cut-and-dry as you are presenting it.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 8 Oct 2009 01:42 On 2009-10-08 00:15:53 -0400, gnubeard <gnubeard(a)gmail.com> said: > The guys who reverse engineered the IBM XT were prohibited, legally, > from producing a clone based on their research. But they were NOT > legally prohibited from publishing papers about their findings. > Compaq, the first clone maker, used those papers to build an IBM > compatible PC. This happened before the DMCA. Your actions did not. The DMCA exception for reverse engineering explicitly prohibits publication of the results. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Madhu on 8 Oct 2009 01:49
* gnubeard Wrote on Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:12:45 -0700 (PDT): | | Say this all you like - and it is true. But I didn't reverse engineer | anything. You made changes to your environment and observed how the behaviour of the software changed (with regard to changes in your environment); with the intent of changing the behaviour of a product to overcome an access restriction in the product. This constitutes reverse engineering. This was prohibited by the license. You reverse engineered the product to circumvent a limitation (access restrictions) put in by the owner of the product which was licensed for personal use. You published the results of your reverse engineering, thereby enabling others to circumvent the access restrictions which were intended and put in place by the owner of the software. This is no longer "personal use." [You're still posting after the kill expired. Hopefully I won't see you another week] -- Madhu |