Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Espen Vestre on 9 Oct 2009 07:25
Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> writes:

> 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.

But with most licenses (including the one used by Lispworks), the
ownership of the copy of the software is NOT transferred to the end
user, so you're not free to do whatever you want to it, just like your
public library won't let you modify their books to your own wishes "in
the comfort and privacy of your home".
--
(espen)
From: vippstar on 9 Oct 2009 08:50
On Oct 9, 2:25 pm, Espen Vestre <es...(a)vestre.net> wrote:
> Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> writes:
> > 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.
>
> But with most licenses (including the one used by Lispworks), the
> ownership of the copy of the software is NOT transferred to the end
> user, so you're not free to do whatever you want to it, just like your
> public library won't let you modify their books to your own wishes "in
> the comfort and privacy of your home".

What about copying the book and using the copy for my own needs? ...
From: Espen Vestre on 9 Oct 2009 09:06
vippstar <vippstar(a)gmail.com> writes:

> What about copying the book and using the copy for my own needs? ...

Good point right at the heart of the problems with IP rights. But I
didn't really want to go into the philosophical discussion here.

Putting both the philosophical and juridical questions aside, I think
it's quite sad that a small company providing a wonderful lisp
implementation is subject to threads like this one on this
newsgroup. I'd rather see community support for them than discussions on
how to circumvent "annoyances" with their giveaway product versions.
--
(espen)
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 9 Oct 2009 10:28
On 2009-10-09 05:13:31 -0400, "John Thingstad" <jpthing(a)online.no> said:

> Must be hard to keep up your moral standards living in this den of thieves :)


I personally don't consider it moral to tell creators how they may or
may not control their own IP. By giving IP creators the ability to
control how others use their IP we allow everything from the GPL to
commercial licenses.

The moral answer is simple; if you don't like the lispworks personal
license, don't use lispworks personal.

When someone violates any of these licenses, it is asserting that the
violator's wishes for the disposition of that IP are more important
than the wishes of the IP's creator. This is just selfishness. In order
to be this selfish publicly one must usually be lacking in self
awareness, so such selfish acts are usually accompanied by
rationalizing.

As a practical matter, to allow these sorts of license violations is to
create an IP climate in which every license becomes a de facto public
domain license. This would be a disaster for the free flow of
knowledge; Those who had valuable IP would simply keep it secret.



--
Raffael Cavallaro

From: Nick Keighley on 9 Oct 2009 11:17
On 30 Sep, 08:29, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> The whole thread reminds me of a civil law class that I have taken
> (IANAL, but it seemed -- and turned out to be -- interesting).  It was
> a course for non-law students, most had a mathematics/science
> background.  _All_ questions from the audience were like this,
> students thinking that laws are like an algorithm that they can hack.
> The professor was very understanding and actually stopped to explain
> that legal systems don't work that way -- common sense is present in
> both Common Law and continental European systems, and you can't expect
> to get away with technical tricks like that.

in my country it used to illegal to trade on a sunday except for
certain
exceptions. A man who lived in my town wanted to sell furniture on a
sunday but this was not one of the allowed exceptions.

Groceries were exempt.
So he sold 200 &currency_unit carrots and gave away arm chairs.
When it got to court the judge ruled this was not a genuine grocery
sale
but merely a device for circumventing the law.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"