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 15:00 Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> writes: > 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. You're free to buy an uncrippled version of the same software whenever you want. You may think the crippled version is pure evil, but other programmers enjoy it. I have some sympathy for the /principles/ you and others are advocating here, but I don't approve of using a small friendly lisp company as a target. -- (espen)
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 9 Oct 2009 15:01 Espen Vestre <espen(a)vestre.net> writes: > 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? Yes. You're right :-) -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 15:06 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. Now you're repeating yourself, as well as continuing to ignore all of the reasoning and evidence to refute your claim that any legally binding contract was ever entered into. It's much closer to if someone sells you something, then AFTER the sale (NOT as a condition of sale) says "please don't do X with it", and you then do X with it. Here's a hypothetical. I buy a box of chocolates. When I get it home I unwrap and open it and find a paper note inside above the chocolates and face-up saying "License agreement. By opening this box you agree not to eat the square ones. They're all delicious and nontoxic but if you eat any square one we can repossess your chocolates and sue you." I eat a square one. 1. Did I do something wrong? 2. Should the manufacturer be able to sue me? 3. Is the manufacturer being stupid? 4. Is the manufacturer being evil? Now let's say I buy a book. The hardback and paperback edition are side by side in the store and I get the paperback edition. I get it home and open it and out falls a slip of paper which says "License agreement. By opening this book you agree not to decipher the last chapter. If you do so, we can repossess the book and sue you. The hardback edition is not encoded." When I get near the end I find that the ending is gobbledygook. Apparently they want me to pay extra for the hardback edition to be able to read the ending. But on a hunch I run the ending through ROT13 and presto! 1. Did I do something wrong? 2. Should the manufacturer be able to sue me? 3. Is the manufacturer being stupid? 4. Is the manufacturer being evil? Now let's say it's LW personal edition and I do what gnubeard did. 1. Did I do something wrong? 2. Should the manufacturer be able to sue me? 3. Is the manufacturer being stupid? 4. Is the manufacturer being evil? If your answers change from one of these to the next, explain why. If your answers are not "no, no, yes, yes" for either of the first two, explain why. Do note that the second and the third item both involve a copyrighted work.
From: Kojak on 9 Oct 2009 15:07 Le Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:48:02 -0700 (PDT), gnubeard a écrit : > For those annoyed with the 5-hour timeout in LispWorks Personal > Edition: Good troll ! Even if this not your intent... :-D -- Jacques.
From: Dave Searles on 9 Oct 2009 15:09
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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). Within the scope and term of copyright law, you say. Yet when I point out that the "rights" LW is trying to assert go well beyond what Title 17 permits as "exclusive rights", you just give me a blank stare. Why? |