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 15:44 Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > 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. Am I allowed to modify my own key in such a way that I _know_ it will open that door, even if nobody can prove that I actually entered the room behind it? What kinds of tests am I allowed to perform to convince myself that the modified key opens that door? Can I, for example, unlock that door, just to quickly lock it afterwards again? Or is that already too much? If that is already too much, how do I know that the modified key opens that door? Or should I actually not know it after all? Where do you draw the line? Am I allowed to give instructions to other people how to create a key that can open that door, as soon as I know about a modification of a key that opens that door? Am I at least partially responsible, then, if others actually enter that room with a key they created based on my instructions? 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: Alessio Stalla on 9 Oct 2009 16:13 On Oct 9, 9:44 pm, Pascal Costanza <p...(a)p-cos.net> wrote: > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > > Pascal Costanza <p...(a)p-cos.net> writes: > > >> Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > >>> Espen Vestre <es...(a)vestre.net> writes: > > >>>> 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". > >>> 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. > > Am I allowed to modify my own key in such a way that I _know_ it will > open that door, even if nobody can prove that I actually entered the > room behind it? Yes - if it is yours, then you can do whatever you want to it. > What kinds of tests am I allowed to perform to convince myself that the > modified key opens that door? Only those which don't break the law. > Can I, for example, unlock that door, just > to quickly lock it afterwards again? Or is that already too much? If > that is already too much, how do I know that the modified key opens that > door? Or should I actually not know it after all? It is too much, from your premise that opening the door is illegal. You do not have the right to know if your key opens the door or not; if you cannot determine it using legal means, then you cannot know it. > Where do you draw the line? Where your private property ends. > Am I allowed to give instructions to other people how to create a key > that can open that door, as soon as I know about a modification of a key > that opens that door? In my opinion, you should always be allowed to. Some legislators believe otherwise, and have made giving certain kinds of information be a crime. I think this is a huge violation of the basic right of free speech. > Am I at least partially responsible, then, if > others actually enter that room with a key they created based on my > instructions? Again in my opinion, no one should *ever* be held even partially responsible for someone else's actions - or we would have the absurdity that one is less responsible for something if somebody told him how to do it. Also in these case many legislators have ruled differently. Alessio
From: Madhu on 10 Oct 2009 02:05 [BAD ANALOGY LIMIT EXCEEDED] * Pascal Costanza <7j9i4eF35035bU1(a)mid.individual.net> : Wrote on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:44:13 +0200: | Pascal J. Bourguignon 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? |>> |>> 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. [..] | Am I allowed to give instructions to other people how to create a key | that can open that door, as soon as I know about a modification of a | key that opens that door? Am I at least partially responsible, then, | if others actually enter that room with a key they created based on my | instructions? I think the limits of the analogy are being stretched too much. It is easy to get lost in the details of the model you are creating in order to study some phenomenon. Any number of models can produce any number of results.[1] To illustrate what I mean, let me use an analogy (from Dave Barry, not inventing my own, to break the metacircularity) What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry -- Madhu [1] I assume you don't have a political or a influence-consumer-behaviour goal in using a model to produce "scientific sounding" results which also appeal directly to the audience (like the bulk of modern funded research)
From: Dave Searles on 10 Oct 2009 02:52 Espen Vestre wrote: > 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. Or to not do so. That's called freedom of transaction. I'm also free to modify my private property in almost any way I choose. That's called property rights. REAL property rights. Oh, and I'm free to talk about it. That's called the First Amendment. > 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. I don't consider any company charging a 150,000% markup (no that is not a typo, read on for the math) on something "friendly". Assuming generously a one-penny average marginal cost per download and the previously stated $1500 price tag -- that's 0.01 dollar expenses, $1500.00 revenue, and therefore $1499.99 profit per transaction. That isn't "a small friendly lisp company", it's highway robbery. In any other business besides software, music, DVDs, illegal drugs, extortion, and prostitution, you're happy to be making 5% margins on each transaction. Even big pharma gets a few hundred percent margins thanks to its big evil patent monopolies. Yet the mob, the entertainment industry, and the software industry get to charge much higher margins, and we can't seem to get the latter two on tax evasion.
From: Dave Searles on 10 Oct 2009 02:58
Espen Vestre wrote: > 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?). It's also bloody common sense. You only lease or rent something that's scarce, i.e. while you have it no-one else can have it and duplicating it is costly. A printed book, say, or a car. There's no justification for treating a transaction as a loan otherwise. There's also no justification for allowing the manufacturer of any good to apply post-sale terms and conditions of use; either the transaction is structured as a sale (or gift) and the recipient owns something outright, OR the transaction is structured as a rental/lease, with up-front paperwork and agreement to that effect prior to transfer of the object. Why should the companies of one SINGLE industry get to have their cake and eat it too? Nobody can point to any legislation that actually makes it so (copyright certainly doesn't) nor has anybody yet even attempted to justify giving that one industry such special treatment. >>> so you're not free to do whatever you want to it, just like your >> In fact you are. > > No, you're not. Yes, you are. >> Nice try, genius. > > Why the offensive tone? Because you're being ridiculous and multiple impacts of the Cloobat(tm) with your skull have not sufficed to change that? >> 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... How is that relevant? Nobody is claiming that Title 17 doesn't make distribution and public performance exclusive rights. We're pointing out that it doesn't make pretty much anything ELSE exclusive rights, and that gnubeard has neither redistributed nor publicly performed (whatever that would mean in this case) Lispworks. |