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: Anti Vigilante on 8 Oct 2009 02:22 On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 21:12 -0700, gnubeard wrote: > 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. Let me clear it up. Suppose he leased a car. He can't change the engine. The car isn't fully his. But he can change his driving style and reduce weight that he puts in the car, like say no more than 10 bowling ball. He likes to have 2 dozen. No reverse engineering has been done. He did not touch LW. He reverse engineered the platform not the product.
From: Evan I on 8 Oct 2009 02:46 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > 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. I really wish whoever wrote that license would clarify the intent of that clause, I read it a few times and found it could be easily read in either direction. 5. Copying, Modification and Distribution. You may not copy the Software except as necessary to exercise your rights under this Agreement and to make one (1) copy of the Software in machine readable form for back-up or archival purposes only. You may not translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create derivative works based on the materials, except as expressly permitted by the law of this Agreement. You may modify the Software and/or merge it into another program solely for your use in accordance with this Agreement. Any portion of the Software merged into another program will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except for the distribution of runtime versions of the software ("Runtimes") in accordance with the following paragraph, this license does not permit the distribution of the Software, or any part thereof, to any third party. It seems to me that this clause is fairly clear. But it is presented here, just to make sure that we are actually talking about the same clause. I don't see a full stop (aka a period) after the phrase "reverse engineer", I see a comma. Indeed that sentence has a sub-clause which informs the reader that there are in fact exemptions. These are presented later in the same clause of the license. But without formal legal training or a degree in English I cannot comment further. > 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. Again, not to be-labor the point, but he has published his awareness of a weakness in the programs limitations. He has NOT published a patch nor distributed a modified copy. Morally his acts are questionable, but I would argue better for the developer than for the potential exploiter. /I/ certainly would not have published such a finding in a public forum. It's very indiscreet, it would have been better to directly inform the author, or if one where mischievous to keep it a shared secret amongst friends. Publishing it in a public forum neither serves self-interest nor the best interests of the creators of LispWorks. But if one of the interests is served it is more likely than not LispWorks, since I had to download it just to read the license, and will probably end up truly testing it out. -- tali713
From: Dave Searles on 8 Oct 2009 11:36 Madhu wrote: > * 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. It's already been explained that by this standard, almost any action one takes with one's hardware and operating system "reverse engineers" multiple pieces of software. > You reverse engineered the product to circumvent a limitation (access > restrictions) put in by the owner of the product Really? I don't recall gnubeard saying he put the access restrictions in place. If he did, though, it *certainly* can't be immoral for him to subsequently change his mind and circumvent them. > 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. Again, I don't recall gnubeard putting them in place. That had previously been attributed to LispWorks, but the copy in question is gnubeard's now, and was by the time of the alleged "reverse engineering".
From: Dave Searles on 8 Oct 2009 11:39 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. The DMCA applies to circumvention of copy protection, and only in the United States. 1. This did not involve copy protection, any more than Skylink making garage door opener remotes that interoperated with Chamberlain's did. 2. I don't think we know gnubeard's location with certainty at this time. > The DMCA exception for reverse engineering explicitly prohibits > publication of the results. That has to be nonsense. Security researchers are always publishing results, and this must be permitted for security reasons. Cybersecurity. NATIONAL security.
From: Dave Searles on 8 Oct 2009 11:56
Dave Searles wrote: > Raffael Cavallaro wrote: >> 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. > > The DMCA applies to circumvention of copy protection, and only in the > United States. > > 1. This did not involve copy protection, any more than Skylink making > garage door opener remotes that interoperated with Chamberlain's did. From the appeals court via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_v._Skylink * "The plain language of the statute ... requires a plaintiff alleging circumvention (or trafficking) to prove that the defendant's access was unauthorized-a significant burden where, as here, the copyright laws authorize consumers to use the copy of Chamberlain's software embedded in the GDOs that they purchased. " That would be that pesky Title 17 Section 117 (a) (1) again, Raffael. * "The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public." For example, gnubeard's ownership of his copy of LW, and his Section 117 (a) (1) rights vis-a-vis that copy. "The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization-as well as notice that authorization was withheld." The Copyright Act permits the copyright holder to withhold authorization for the following enumerated exclusive rights: reproduction and adaptation (with the Section 117 (a) (1) exemption for such reproductions and adaptations as occur as part of normal use of computer software), distribution, and public performance/display. It is clear that gnubeard has not publicly performed or displayed LW, nor distributed it. The remaining exclusive rights don't apply because any made during gnubeard's use of LW clearly fall within the Section 117 (a) (1) exemption. Therefore the circumvention did not involve "a use relating to a ... right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization". Therefore, your DMCA-based argument regarding gnubeard's gettimeofday() hack hasn't got a leg to stand on. "A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused trafficker must demonstrate that the trafficker's device enables either copyright infringement or a prohibited circumvention." And that torpedoes your argument regarding his posting of information here. Since there was no copyright infringement and, as per the above argument, no "prohibited circumvention", it looks to me like gnubeard is free and clear even if he is within the borders of the United States. Now stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it. |