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: Pascal Costanza on 9 Oct 2009 13:13 Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > Espen Vestre <espen(a)vestre.net> writes: > >> 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". > > Exactly, what it is I am forbidden to do with Lispworks' executable? > > May I not compute its md5sum? > May I not copy it from /usr/bin/ to /home/pjb/bin/? > May I not cat it to /dev/snd0? > May I not cat it to /usr/bin/brainfuck? > May I not upgrade my OS libraries? > Why couldn't I write my own version of OS libraries and install them on my own computer? That's not what the OP did. He didn't on one day muck around with the OS libraries and replaced some of them randomly with new functionality, and on some other distant day accidentally realized that his copy of LispWorks Personal Edition ran longer than 5 hours, and then again on some third, again distant figured out that those two events may have had a connection. No, he made an educated guess what LispWorks PE may do to implement its limitation, and probed it with the explicit intent to circumvent it. That's very obvious from his original posting. If I change a key that I own to open a lock that I don't own to enter a room that I'm not supposed to enter, did I act "lawful" just because I made modifications _only_ to my own personal key? I am allowed to modify what I possess, no? Stop thinking like a geek, please! ;) Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 9 Oct 2009 13:22 On 2009-10-09 12:50:45 -0400, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> said: > So for instance, you don't consider it moral to tell creators that they > can't log your keystrokes, or turn your computer into a member of a thousand > element botnet which attacks machines no the net? If the license says this ***Don't Use the Product!*** If you find a license disagreeable for some reason you are free not to enter into it. Just because you find some clause of a license objectionable doesn't give you the right to unilaterally redefine the license. Just don't enter into the license. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 9 Oct 2009 13:28 On 2009-10-09 12:51:36 -0400, pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) said: > This is not clear. > > Don't you consider it a good thing to have a choice between GPL and > commercial licenses (and within commercial licenses, and choices > between various DRM modes)? Yes. > > If not, do you consider everything should be copyleft? Or always with > the most stringent commercial license? (Pay the most hefty sum > everytime you try to use (whatever the kind of use) the commercial > product?) IP creators should get to choose how their IP is licensed. Anything from copyleft to restrictive commercial licenses (within the scope and term of copyright law of course). > > In what way is it not moral to teach people how to control their work > and their work usage? To quote the Sphinx from Mystery Men, "I don't remember telling you to do that." -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 9 Oct 2009 14:29 Pascal Costanza <pc(a)p-cos.net> writes: > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> Espen Vestre <espen(a)vestre.net> writes: >> >>> 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". >> Exactly, what it is I am forbidden to do with Lispworks' executable? >> May I not compute its md5sum? >> May I not copy it from /usr/bin/ to /home/pjb/bin/? >> May I not cat it to /dev/snd0? >> May I not cat it to /usr/bin/brainfuck? >> May I not upgrade my OS libraries? >> Why couldn't I write my own version of OS libraries and install them on my own computer? > > That's not what the OP did. He didn't on one day muck around with the > OS libraries and replaced some of them randomly with new > functionality, and on some other distant day accidentally realized > that his copy of LispWorks Personal Edition ran longer than 5 hours, > and then again on some third, again distant figured out that those two > events may have had a connection. > > No, he made an educated guess what LispWorks PE may do to implement > its limitation, and probed it with the explicit intent to circumvent > it. That's very obvious from his original posting. > > If I change a key that I own to open a lock that I don't own to enter > a room that I'm not supposed to enter, did I act "lawful" just because > I made modifications _only_ to my own personal key? I am allowed to > modify what I possess, no? > > Stop thinking like a geek, please! ;) We have to be precise. Modifying my own key cannot be unlawful. Using it to open a door I'm not allowed to open might be unlawful. Here the OP has been critized for modifying his key. We should only critize him if he uses Lispworks for more than five hours. He should be entitled to report the big in the DRM limitation algorithm of Lispworks, which is only he did here. We don't have a proof that he actually used Lispworks more than five hours, even if it is what he said he wanted to do. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 14:34
Nick Keighley wrote: > 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 ¤cy_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. I don't know which is more ridiculous: the law in question, the method of circumvention, or the judge actually upholding the obviously-bogus law. In particular, where is the harm in selling furniture on a Sunday? Point me to the victim, please. No victim, no crime. |