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: Kaz Kylheku on 10 Oct 2009 12:04 On 2009-10-10, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> wrote: > Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> > writes: > >> 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. > > 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.??? There is no violation of anything if you do not redistribute the software. The license text is a bunch of demented spewage that you can ignore. > Now since this is not included, one is left wondering, If this were the > intent, then why wasn't such a phrase included? Because LispWorks is a development tool, its principal value lies in being able to develop and ship software. The trial version of the software ships with a limitation, the circumvenion of which results in a derived work. Under copyright law, you cannot redistribute this derived work. This is what protects the principal value of the software. In order to develop and ship software using LW, you cannot use the modified version where the time limit has been circumvented. Ther are other kinds of programs out there which come in the form of a crippled demo version (freely downloadable) or some full version to which you can upgrade. Most of that software does not have a principal value connected to its redistribution (like the run-time of a development tool). For instance shareware games, utilities editors, and the like. Such software is not protected in any way. You can modify it to produce the full version, if you are so inclined. You do not require anyone's permission to do whatever computing you want to do on your own machine. Computing is an extension of thinking. Reverse-engineering is a thoughtcrime (to borrow a fitting Nineteen Eighty-Four term). > But as reading the license will demonstrate, this is probably not the > case; as in clause two they manage to clearly close issues involving > time limited evaluation copies. Since it would only take adding a few > words to this clause, ???or avoiding limitations in Personal Edition???, to > achieve the intent that has been implied exists, we are again left > wondering. Why not? Probably because they don't give a damn if anyone does this! If someone needs more than five hours to develop someting with LispWorks, who gives a damn, if that developer eventually ships something for which he buys the full version? > To paraphrase. Just because you believe some clause of a license to > have an intent doesn't give you the right to unilaterally redefine the > license. Unless of course you authored the license in which case, all > future licenses can be redefined. That is wrong. The license itself is a copyrighted work. You don't have a right to modify the license and then redistribute it.
From: Kaz Kylheku on 10 Oct 2009 12:08 On 2009-10-10, Robert Swindells <rjs(a)fdy2.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > 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 ? Licenses only apply to redistribution. A license is a permissino, and you don't need permission to do anything you want with a copyrighted work that you have properly obtained. > I would have thought that the OP's actions would be prohibited by the > DMCA. Only to those who live in your fucked up country. So what? In some other fucked up country, if you're a married woman, your husband owns you. If he dies, you stop being a person. He can divorce you at the drop of a hat, but if you want to divorce you need a licen^H^H^H^H^H^H^H permission from the husband. The point is, don't use your fucked up country's laws in discussions about what is right.
From: Evan I on 10 Oct 2009 15:00 Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> writes: > > Probably because they don't give a damn if anyone does this! > > If someone needs more than five hours to develop someting with LispWorks, who > gives a damn, if that developer eventually ships something for which he buys > the full version? > >> To paraphrase. Just because you believe some clause of a license to >> have an intent doesn't give you the right to unilaterally redefine the >> license. Unless of course you authored the license in which case, all >> future licenses can be redefined. > > That is wrong. The license itself is a copyrighted work. You don't have > a right to modify the license and then redistribute it. Which is why it was not modified in any way when I included it in my post, not even the line breaks. But for the record an author of any work ALWAYS has the right to create a new version if they feel their prior is lacking. This does not alter the prior, merely the new work. Whether you agree with license or not, whether, the morality of the act is just or not, whether it is by the laws of your county or mine; the one truth remains... A clause this ambiguous and easy to interpret from different readings is NOT going to end up being binding. It is either a) a poorly worded license with ambiguous intent or b) a well worded license that clearly and explicitly prohibits (binding under your local laws or not) what it intends to and leaves gray areas where it intends to. Judging on the entirety of the license, I believe the latter to be the case, others believe the former. My belief is based on the notion that non-ambiguous wording exists elsewhere in the license. And is further demonstrated by how easy it would be to have clearly stated... "NO CIRCUMVENTION OF ANY LIMITATIONS IN THIS SOFTWARE ARE ALLOWED" Notice the complete and utter lack of ambiguity. If this can not be legally binding, then neither can implying it. This of course differs depending on local law. I refuse to address issues of morality in the same breath as issues of law. One informs the other and if you don't know which way that relationship works, there is little hope. Ideally a license should be ethically founded, unambiguous to lawyer and layman, and legally binding. The three are not equivalent and only the latter two matter to a court. -- tali713
From: Anti Vigilante on 10 Oct 2009 18:29 On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 09:47 -0400, 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... ââ¬ÅA, B, C etc... are limitations with LispWorks Personal Edition; > > any circumvention of these limitations is a violation of this license.â⬠> > 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. I was writing a short rant, but I decided to say simply: Bollocks. Circumvention requires common sense. Reverse engineering is not necessary.
From: Anti Vigilante on 10 Oct 2009 18:53
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 16:04 +0000, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2009-10-10, Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> wrote: > > Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> > > writes: > > > >> 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. > > > > 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.??? > > There is no violation of anything if you do not redistribute the software.. > > The license text is a bunch of demented spewage that you can ignore. > > > Now since this is not included, one is left wondering, If this were the > > intent, then why wasn't such a phrase included? > > Because LispWorks is a development tool, its principal value lies in being > able to develop and ship software. > > The trial version of the software ships with a limitation, the circumvenion > of which results in a derived work. Changing the C library is not a modification of LW. The C library is a wholly separate unit. It is a support library and not a component that implements any feature. Changing it does not change the raw code of LW. Changing the C library is a modification of the C library. Otherwise one could argue that if you modify the C library in such a way that it crashes programs that you have modified those programs and as such can be sued for damage to those programs. The only infringement that could be claimed is against the right of the user. In fact when Sony installed a root kit on one of their CDs to prevent distribution, they did in fact expose the user's computer to security holes inherent in there being a root kit. The same way in the past when certain anti virus products went so far as to take over a boot sector to prevent future use elsewhere. The boot sector belongs to the owner of the machine. One possible argument is the way MSDOS versions would cause competing memory extenders to crash. This firstly infringed against the user but it successfully hurt the reputation of the competitor. Still there is no copyright claim. Even if someone intended to prevent that software from working maybe you're in a cave somewhere and are using the software purely out of necessity (like creating enough CPU heat to start a fire). It is a trademark violation (and only if it is negative reputation aside from free speech). But no more than that. And even if you make a modification entirely for LW and no other program it's outside the fence. The jurisdiction over which the license can apply cannot be a nebulous object such as a feature or even an intended behavior. The jurisdiction can only be the binary and source code. It can only be the "physical" extent. Intellectual property is such ridiculous term. Copyrights protect the output. Patents protect the implementation. Trademarks protect the reputation. NOTHING protects the ideas, the features, the behaviors, the part of it that belongs to the imagination. The change in behavior whether intended or not is > Under copyright law, you cannot redistribute this derived work. > > This is what protects the principal value of the software. In order to develop > and ship software using LW, you cannot use the modified version where the time > limit has been circumvented. |