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: Kaz Kylheku on 8 Oct 2009 13:31 On 2009-10-08, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> 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. This > was prohibited by the license. Showing your face in public if you're a woman is also prohibited by the license attached to your life when you live in some parts of the world.
From: vippstar on 8 Oct 2009 13:48 On Oct 8, 8:31 pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-08, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> 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. This > > was prohibited by the license. > > Showing your face in public if you're a woman is also prohibited by the > license attached to your life when you live in some parts of the world. Showing your genitals in public is prohibited in any country.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 8 Oct 2009 16:55 On 2009-10-08 02:46:08 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > Again, not to be-labor the point, but he has published his awareness of > a weakness in the programs limitations. No, he has not merely published the fact that he is aware of how to circumvent a limitiation, he has published specific, detailed instructions on how to circumvent a limitation. This is precisely what's meant by publishing the results of reverse engineering. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Evan I on 8 Oct 2009 18:26 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2009-10-08 02:46:08 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > >> Again, not to be-labor the point, but he has published his awareness of >> a weakness in the programs limitations. > > No, he has not merely published the fact that he is aware of how to > circumvent a limitiation, he has published specific, detailed > instructions on how to circumvent a limitation. > > This is precisely what's meant by publishing the results of reverse > engineering. Well, if it really is reverse engineering. Which I find suspect, as I often have insight into how a program probably works, but I would hardly call it reverse engineering. Maybe if he had reverse engineered something I would feel differently. Like had the check been something internal to the program, and had he figured out how that internal component worked, and then replaced it. That would be beyond a shadow of a doubt reverse engineering. This is simply observation of a program running on a machine, combined with altering how the machine works. To call that reverse engineering is like noticing that one of my programs can't load images, so I guess it must be missing a library, so I install a couple of image libraries. No one in their right mind would suggest that I reverse engineered the program. So let's call it for what it is. Circumvention of an intentionally introduced flaw in the program. Which is *definitely* naughty. But not an explicit violation of the license agreement, nor in truth reverse engineering. Unless you want to claim that any astute user of a computer reverse engineers all their software because they guess and confirm how some small part of it works. In which case, I wonder how a programmer could use /any/ software without reverse engineering it. That being said, if the authors intent has been violated then that intent should either be clearly stated on the website or explicitly mentioned in the license. I understand that this can be a difficult process, but correctly wording a license is a really good idea, even if it is only over a trivial matter. BTW, he also published how to fix the flaw, not just how to exploit it. Should he be criticized for that as well? If not, how does one suggest how to fix a flaw without describing it? For that matter how could flaws in the license be noticed without them being discussed. Not everyone acts on moral grounds so a license really should be very well written, if you wish it to be enforcable. Merely asserting that something must be reverse engineering because of it's outcomes would be a very weak argument should it ever actually matter. In this case, I believe the discussiong to be more about addressing the morality of the issue and the steps that can be taken to prevent abuse. Only rationally discussing these issues will resolve them. -- tali713 P.S. I can no longer find the wording on the website that mentions that these limitations are for the purposes of preventing commercial use. Either I am going blind, or that language has been removed. Either way, I have nothing left to say on the subject. It is no longer clear to me that the intent was not violated.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 8 Oct 2009 19:00
On 2009-10-08 18:26:48 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > Unless you want to claim that any astute user of a > computer reverse engineers all their software because they guess and > confirm how some small part of it works. Guessing, no. Confirming, yes. Sytematic confirmation of an hypothesis of how something operates is the very definition of reverse engineering. -- Raffael Cavallaro |