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: Espen Vestre on 9 Oct 2009 14:38 pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: > Here the OP has been critized for modifying his key. We should only > critize him if he uses Lispworks for more than five hours. Why this hairsplitting? What is the subject of this thread, and why? > He should be entitled to report the big in the DRM limitation > algorithm of Lispworks, which is only he did here. Then the Subject wording is pretty bad, don't you think? -- (espen)
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 14:44 Espen Vestre wrote: > 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. Well, tough. It's called free speech, and if in my opinion intentionally crippling software is evil, I have a right to state that opinion.
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 14:48 Pascal Costanza wrote: > 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? That's different. This is more like you bought a house, moved in, found the keys you got wouldn't open one door in the basement, and picked the lock. Oh, and the previous owner had mentioned something about not wanting you to go in there, before selling you the place without making it a binding condition of the sale. I don't see a crime there. > Stop thinking like a geek, please! ;) Wrong newsgroup. Try alt.politics.obama maybe. If you post in comp.lang.lisp expect replies from geeks.
From: Espen Vestre on 9 Oct 2009 14:55 Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> writes: > Maybe in the demented minds of some drunken lawyers! But in fact, you do own > the copy. You don't own the copyright: the right to make and redistribute other > copies. Ok, I realise that this might be the current juridical understanding (at least in parts of the world?). >>so you're not free to do whatever you want to it, just like your > > In fact you are. No, you're not. > Nice try, genius. Why the offensive tone? > If I get my own book, I can make margin notes in it, tear out pages, > black out or highlight passages, etc. But you can't necessarily read it in front of a public audience... -- (espen)
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 14:57
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. Really? Then the Founding Fathers were immoral when they said that control could only last "for limited Times"? Congress was immoral when they passed the Copyright Act and it only granted a few specific, exclusive rights with a lot of limitations? The President was immoral when he signed it into law? Numerous judges and juries were immoral when they made various findings of fair use over the centuries? The judges of the court of appeals that smacked down Chamberlain in Chamberlain v. Skylink were immoral? > By giving IP creators the ability to control how others use their IP > we allow everything from the GPL to commercial licenses. If we were ever to do so, what we'd be allowing is communism. The free market would be destroyed and replaced with central control of the economy by a few large organizations. Private transactions would cease to be; everyone would have to buy from the company store. That is the logical endpoint of "intellectual property enforcement": a surveillance state and no free market. It starts with saying you can't copy this or that. Then with your computer isn't yours any more, software companies get to decide how you may or may not use it. Then your car and anything else with a microchip in it. Then everything else. Soon you have no private property anymore; everything is "licensed, not sold". Welcome to Soviet Union 2.0. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html > 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. No, it is stating that the "violator"'s wishes for the disposition of their own copy of something are more important than the wishes of the copy's manufacturer -- same as for any other manufactured good. We don't consider that evil, immoral, or selfish if it's any other manufactured good, including books or CDs which have copyrights. Why should we make a special case for software? > 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 I don't know where you get the idea that making it easier for people to freely exchange information would be "a disaster for the free flow of knowledge". Read one week of Techdirt. Any week. You'll see how clearly it's the opposite (and intuitive) result: increasing the degree to which vendors can arbitrarily restrict the free flow of information is a disaster for the free flow of knowledge. |