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 10 Oct 2009 08:35 Madhu wrote: > [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. Well, I don't think so. 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 10 Oct 2009 09:47 On 2009-10-10 06:49:38 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > There is one little detail that seems to be missed in this discussion. > There is nothing stopping the creators from including a clause of the > form... “A, B, C etc... are limitations with LispWorks Personal Edition; > any circumvention of these limitations is a violation of this license.” It does. You're just not reading the lawyer-speak carefully: "You may not translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create derivative works based on the materials, except as expressly permitted by the law of this Agreement." Circumvent is a proper subset of "translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create derivative works." You can't circumvent a limitation without reverse engineering how it works. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Robert Swindells on 10 Oct 2009 10:02 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: >On 2009-10-10 06:49:38 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > >> There is one little detail that seems to be missed in this discussion. >> There is nothing stopping the creators from including a clause of the >> form... “A, B, C etc... are limitations with LispWorks Personal Edition; >> any circumvention of these limitations is a violation of this license.” > >It does. You're just not reading the lawyer-speak carefully: > >"You may not translate, reverse >engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create >derivative works based on the materials, except as >expressly permitted by the law of this Agreement." > >Circumvent is a proper subset of "translate, reverse >engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create >derivative works." You can't circumvent a limitation without reverse >engineering how it works. Do the licence terms really matter ? I would have thought that the OP's actions would be prohibited by the DMCA.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 10 Oct 2009 10:10 On 2009-10-10 10:02:20 -0400, Robert Swindells <rjs(a)fdy2.demon.co.uk> said: > Do the licence terms really matter ? > > I would have thought that the OP's actions would be prohibited by the > DMCA. True enough in the US, but LispWorks is a UK company with customers in Europe (and, I imagine, other world markets as well) so in jurisdictions where the DMCA is not the law these license terms may well be necessary to prevent circumvention, reverse engineering, etc. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Kaz Kylheku on 10 Oct 2009 11:50
On 2009-10-10, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-10 06:49:38 -0400, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> said: > >> There is one little detail that seems to be missed in this discussion. >> There is nothing stopping the creators from including a clause of the >> form... ???A, B, C etc... are limitations with LispWorks Personal Edition; >> any circumvention of these limitations is a violation of this license.??? > > It does. You're just not reading the lawyer-speak carefully: I never read this garbage. The concept of a license is completely meaningless to me. Proprietary software is usually not redistributable. If there is no permission to redistribute, there is no license. License means a kind of permission! A piece of propritary, non-redistributabl software just needs a notice like this: Copyright 2009 Software Corporation All Rights Reserved The ``All Rights Reserved'' part means that the copyright holder has not waived any of their rights. This means you can't copy the work. Other than that, there might be some text about warranties: the software can set your computer on fire, but they don't owe you a penny more than the price of the software. And that's the end of it. A license is necessary in the situationw hen not All Rights are Reserved. In that case, permission is being given. That's what a license is: the permission to do something. The purpose of a license accompanying a copyrighted work is to spell out the ways in which the rights are not reserved. Those rights have to do with attributino, distribution and making of derived works. You do not require a license (i.e permission) to run a program, look at the code, or any of those things. Licensing simply does not enter into the transaction of purchasing a copyrighted work. > "You may not translate, reverse > engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify or create > derivative works based on the materials, except as > expressly permitted by the law of this Agreement." Text like the above is the /wishful/ spewage of a psychotic mind. It is not connected to anything that can be called reality. You do not require anyone's permission to do any kind of computing you want. |