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: gnubeard on 27 Sep 2009 06:23 On Sep 27, 7:50 pm, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:53:46 -0700, gnubeard wrote: > > There is no *law* against configuring my machine the way I choose, even > > if that configuration screws up the intended execution of someone else's > > code. > > Literal interpretations have little consequence in this case. You > seem clearly aware that the time limit is placed on the product for a > reason, and you are circumventing it knowingly. And I am aware of the reason for the existence of the limitation, while you are not. From the Personal Edition release notes: LispWorks Personal Edition has several limitations designed to prevent commercial exploitation of this free product. These are: * A heap size limit * A time limit of 5 hours for each session. * The functions save-image , deliver , and load-all-patches are not available. * Initialization files are not available. * Professional and Enterprise Edition module loading is not included. .... The limitation is NOT there to convince me to buy the professional or enterprise editions. > There are two kinds of people: those who can create intellectual > value, and those who can't. The former have the freedom of deciding > what to do with it, the while latter have to be satisfied with > thinking up ways to steal it and justifying their actions. > > Tamas I feel sad for you. It must be terrible to live in a world where people are as easily divided as bits; a world with no vagaries or shades of meaning. I imagine it must be a desolate, lonely place. You should try getting out of the house/lab/office more.
From: gnubeard on 27 Sep 2009 07:02 On Sep 27, 7:20 pm, Lieven Marchand <m...(a)wyrd.be> wrote: > As a paying Lispworks customer, I would prefer them to continue working > on enhancing a great product rather than play these silly games with a > cracker who obviously isn't interested in buying the product. Indeed. But, I'd *LOVE* to buy LW - you're completely, 100% wrong on that point. But, the pro and enterprise editions are pricey, and dont offer me *ANY* features that help me and instead only include stuff that I don't want. I'd pay $100 right now, for a Personal Edition minus the time-lock (keep the heap size and other limitations in place). Thats $100 just so that my Lisp code could get the correct system time/date easily. In effect, I'm just trading one limitation for another. Instead of timing out after 5-hours, (get-decoded-time) and friends don't work. You know, if LW would have done something to maintain/distribute the SigLab sources with their product *THAT* would represent significant value to me, and I'd pay the $1500, possibly even more depending on how much effort was put into it. Or even their own audio/signal libraries and visualization tools.
From: gnubeard on 27 Sep 2009 07:22 On Sep 27, 8:02 pm, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > No, but it's an interesting legal point. IANAL (much less a USA > lawyer). While I wouldn't have a law that would make software a > binding contract (for the simple reason that it's not open source > software, therefore the recipient cannot read the "contract" before > using it), it seems that DRM are made legal contract by the WTC and > enacted by the various laws such as DMCA (USA) and DADVSI (France). > Therefore even if it's not explicitely state in the SLA, as a DRM > device, the 5-hour limit is probably binding (depending on the country > where the OP uses LispWorks). > > But who am I to say anything, my vote is worth only 1/62e6, and > politicians just lie and do whatever they want. IANAL either.. but yes, DMCA act provisions are interesting in this context. It is too fine of a legal line for me to really be able to draw. However, my understanding is that the DMCA and similar laws criminalize circumventing COPY PROTECTION - that is, circumventing restrictions to access to the content itself. I do, clearly, have a right to copy/download LW Personal. From LW's license, I even have a right to modify if it for my own use. From LW Personal's notes the limitations are NOT copy protection mechanisms, but are designed to make the product as delivered unsuitable for commercial use - which is forbidden by their SLA. I am not using it for commercial use, so the fact that I jump through some hoops to loosen the 5-hour restriction is not against the SLA, and I don't believe it would be a DMCA violation either, since I have a right to the copy to begin with - and I'm allowed to modify my copy.
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 27 Sep 2009 07:45 gnubeard <gnubeard(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sep 27, 8:02�pm, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) > wrote: > >> No, but it's an interesting legal point. �IANAL (much less a USA >> lawyer). �While I wouldn't have a law that would make software a >> binding contract (for the simple reason that it's not open source >> software, therefore the recipient cannot read the "contract" before >> using it), it seems that DRM are made legal contract by the WTC and >> enacted by the various laws such as DMCA (USA) and DADVSI (France). >> Therefore even if it's not explicitely state in the SLA, as a DRM >> device, the 5-hour limit is probably binding (depending on the country >> where the OP uses LispWorks). >> >> But who am I to say anything, my vote is worth only 1/62e6, and >> politicians just lie and do whatever they want. > > IANAL either.. but yes, DMCA act provisions are interesting in this > context. It is too fine of a legal line for me to really be able to > draw. > > However, my understanding is that the DMCA and similar laws > criminalize circumventing COPY PROTECTION - that is, circumventing > restrictions to access to the content itself. > > I do, clearly, have a right to copy/download LW Personal. > > From LW's license, I even have a right to modify if it for my own > use. > > From LW Personal's notes the limitations are NOT copy protection > mechanisms, but are designed to make the product as delivered > unsuitable for commercial use - which is forbidden by their SLA. > > I am not using it for commercial use, so the fact that I jump through > some hoops to loosen the 5-hour restriction is not against the SLA, > and I don't believe it would be a DMCA violation either, since I have > a right to the copy to begin with - and I'm allowed to modify my copy. It sounds like they might have inavertently disabled legally their DRM, but it will probably be up to a judge to decide wether SLA takes precedence over DMCA or the inverse. If there's a contradiction between what they allow you to do with their software, and a DRM device inside this software, perhaps USA judges will decide that the DRM is prioritary, and that you still cannot modify it. In any case, I can see their lawyers arguing that they meant you were allowed to modify lisp sources, and not the virtual machine. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Pascal Costanza on 27 Sep 2009 07:53
gnubeard wrote: > On Sep 26, 6:06 pm, Pascal Costanza <p...(a)p-cos.net> wrote: > >> How much did your guitar cost? > > About $200 USD for the guitar. I built my own amp, and I've dropped a > total of probably another $150-200 on a couple of used pedals, cables > and such. What would you do if you could buy such equipment only for a higher price? > The whole rig is much less than a LispWorks license, if that is what > you're asking. No, that's not what I'm asking. 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/ |