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: Dave Searles on 10 Oct 2009 22:52 Espen Vestre wrote: > Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> writes: >> [says I'm a liar] > > Thank you for pointing that out. I am not a liar and it is incorrect to thank someone for falsely claiming otherwise.
From: Dave Searles on 10 Oct 2009 22:53 Evan I wrote: > I really had no intention of continuing on this thread, but I believe > you are missing [rest of personal attack deleted] I am missing nothing.
From: Dave Searles on 10 Oct 2009 22:55 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. Apparently you can, if you make a not-especially-lucky guess instead of decompiling it.
From: Dave Searles on 10 Oct 2009 22:56 Robert Swindells wrote: > Do the licence terms really matter ? > > I would have thought that the OP's actions would be prohibited by the > DMCA. Nope. The DMCA covers copy protection. Nobody here is discussing cracking copy protection.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 10 Oct 2009 23:52
On 2009-10-10 21:01:01 -0400, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> said: > In nearly every posting I have made in this thread, I made a clear > distinction between doing something with the work (manipulating > bits on your machine) and redistribution (making copies for other, > broadcasting, etc). I understand that *you* belive this distinction to be crucial, but the law does not. Specifically, courts have held that licenses *can* restrict in what way you may manipulate the bits on your machine when it involves using a work of which you are not the copyright holder. The fact that you think the DMCA is the product of "insane fucks" will not help anyone charged with a violation of it in the slightest. -- Raffael Cavallaro |