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: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 03:11 vippstar wrote: > 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. Bollocks. Lots have nude beaches or similar designated areas, even if they do not permit it in all public places.
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 03:15 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. He published a description, not clear instructions that wouldn't require quite a bit of blank-filling-in by a would-be implementor. And that's after you ignored the points I raised in a couple of other recent posts.
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 03:20 Evan I wrote: > Circumvention of an intentionally introduced flaw in the program. > Which is *definitely* naughty. I don't agree, and it seems likely that Kaz and Alessio also don't agree, that it's circumventing such flaws that is naughty, instead of intentionally introducing flaws that is naughty. > 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. Even that doesn't address the elephant in the room here, which is the question of exactly how binding the author's intent *should* be, legally and otherwise, upon the user? I think the only reasonable answer here is "none", same as for any other property. I buy a box of chocolates from Hershey, they're mine. Hershey doesn't get to decide I can't do certain things with them and somehow have that have the legal force of law unless I don't receive the box until AFTER signing some contract. Why should LispWorks be held to a different standard than Hershey? > 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. I don't think that modifying your own property in the comfort and privacy of your own home IS abuse, no matter what its manufacturer's wishes regarding its use. > Only rationally discussing these issues will resolve them. This I agree with wholeheartedly.
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 03:21 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. He took a single stab in the dark and it happened to be right. It doesn't get much less systematic than that, idiot.
From: John Thingstad on 9 Oct 2009 05:13
P� Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:55:21 +0200, skrev Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com>: > 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 Bill Clementsen figured out how to get LispWorks Personal to execute a init script to load Edi's starter-pack. http://bc.tech.coop/blog/070403.html I guess by your definition that makes him a thief too. (LWPE doesn't read the init file.) Must be hard to keep up your moral standards living in this den of thieves :) -------------- John Thingstad |