Logo by Trifox - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Visit the official fractalforums.com Youtube Channel
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. March 29, 2024, 09:02:26 AM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Who Owns The Software On Your Computer?  (Read 6280 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« on: October 16, 2010, 02:31:58 PM »

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT:  The following discussion has been split off from this topic:  http://www.fractalforums.com/images-showcase-(rate-my-fractal)/3d-mandelbrot-and-julia-sets-with-waves/ 

It was taking over a thread which was intended to discuss a new feature in FractalWorks.  The discussion is valid, but does not belong in that thread, so I gave it it's own!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I particularly like that first image  surfing

Is this feature in the latest build available for download?

I am not sure if my version is the most current or not!

Sockratease,

This new version, 0.6.4, was released earlier this month. The old version (0.6.3) will refuse to launch, stating that it's expired.

The waves feature is new with 0.6.4. It's in the 3D view window, in the "move mode" group of controls.



Maybe you don't recall our old conversation about how I "fixed" that problem because my mac is not often able to get online for more than a few minutes at a time!

And since at that time you gave me permission to explore other ways to deal with the situation, I discovered an even more effective "fix" and now all my old versions work, with no need to resort to the methods of my first fix   clown

I can go into details if you are interested, but don't want to mention anything publicly!

Meanwhile, I'll look into downloading the new build.  May I suggest putting a link to the page in your signature?  I have to go digging for a link now!

EDIT
@Rathinagiri - I doubt there is a windows build.  Sadly there isn't even a MINE type software similar to WINE  (WINE is a WINdows Emulator for Mac, so I guess MINE would be a Mac Emulator for windows.  But no such software exists to my knowledge)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 11:16:54 AM by Sockratease » Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2010, 09:07:43 AM »

Why don't you want to mention anything publicly? It's as if you think we shouldn't be allowed to run any version of software we please, and stand pat at a particular version if we'd prefer not to update it, or something. That seems very weird.
Logged

Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2010, 12:57:22 PM »

Why don't you want to mention anything publicly? It's as if you think we shouldn't be allowed to run any version of software we please, and stand pat at a particular version if we'd prefer not to update it, or something. That seems very weird.

You didn't know that I *am* very weird? 

Well, at least you figured it out!   bubble gum

I just don't want to mention these "fixes" publicly without Duncan's permission.  One is very simple and has no direct effect on the software, but the other is actually hacking the program in the simplest possible way, using only tools everyone has if they own a mac.

But it is Duncan's program, and I didn't even consider trying the second idea without asking him first!  I'll post both methods if he says it's OK.  But I wont violate his trust by posting them without his consent.

It is NOT "as if (I) think (you) shouldn't be allowed to run any version of software (you) please, and stand pat at a particular version if (you'd) prefer not to update it, or something" - Just the opposite!  That is how Duncan wants it, and it's his program to distribute as he sees fit.  *I* didn't want it that way, so I asked the program's creator for permission to try and get around it!

I couldn't get my mac online, so tried the first trick (which ANYONE should be able to figure out!) when it passed it's expiration date, and it worked.  It's the simplest trick in the world for getting around expiration dates, and does not involve touching the program itself in any way, so I felt free to do it without asking.  At that time I wrote Duncan and told him of this gap in his program's security.  I offered to investigate further and see if I could find other gaps, and he said to feel free.  This other method involves getting into the program on a very basic level  (no fancy compilers or decompilers were used), but because of that I was compelled to ask before even trying it!

But he never said I could post this information publicly.  And so I will not.  Out of respect.

You are a clever person and should have enough clues from this post to figure out the first trick from here.  But you seem like an honorable person too, and should understand that disclosing something publicly, which I was only given permission to investigate privately, would be a breach of trust.

That's why I wont post it publicly until and unless Duncan himself says it's OK  cop
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2010, 10:51:20 AM »

I don't get this. The program's "security"? If I install a program on my computer, I want its "security" to be protecting it from other people on my behalf, not protecting it from me on someone else's behalf. I don't consider the latter to be legitimate at all. My hardware, my CPU cycles, my choice what the machine does with them. Program developers don't magically get some kind of sublet rights to my machine. That would be like letting a furniture maker or appliance maker have a key to my house and the ability to limit, post-sale, what I could do with the furniture or appliance. Not only is there a "why should I let someone exert any control over something after they've sold it to me?" question there, there's also a "why should I trust them?" one.

I can see this Duncan fellow not wanting to have to support multiple versions at once, but forcing people to upgrade and trying to actually physically restrain them from using an older version if they want to seems quite extreme. Duncan can always just tell people that only the latest version is supported, sorry, etc.

Instead, he's acting like Apple and its freaking app store, wanting to keep controlling everything even after he's supposedly given or sold it to you. Apple also seems to be doing so to try to maintain a seamless, safe, and cheaper to support user experience, with maybe a dash of more ulterior motives thrown in, and it chafes when Apple does it too -- both users and developers have had plenty of complaints about Apple's app store policies, bricking jailbroken phones, and things of that nature.

In my opinion, Duncan is making a mistake by adopting an Apple-like design philosophy that involves trying to control the product after it's left his hands.

It's his mistake to make, but a) I do think it is one and b) I don't see anything morally questionable about jailbreaking his app, any more than there is a moral issue with jailbreaking an iPhone, nor in aiding others in jailbreaking theirs.

Perhaps you do, and that is then your mistake to make (or at least in my opinion it's a mistake).

Anyway, carry on, but please do give this at least a little thought.
Logged

Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2010, 11:28:29 AM »

I don't get this. The program's "security"? If I install a program on my computer, I want its "security" to be protecting it from other people on my behalf, not protecting it from me on someone else's behalf. I don't consider the latter to be legitimate at all. My hardware, my CPU cycles, my choice what the machine does with them. Program developers don't magically get some kind of sublet rights to my machine. That would be like letting a furniture maker or appliance maker have a key to my house and the ability to limit, post-sale, what I could do with the furniture or appliance. Not only is there a "why should I let someone exert any control over something after they've sold it to me?" question there, there's also a "why should I trust them?" one.

It's not interfering with your hardware or cpu cycles in any way.

It's a simple expiration date.

Like all trial versions of software, it has a time-out date.  My guess is that he may make it Commercial one day, and does not want working trial versions out there when that day comes.  But that is only a guess...

Instead, he's acting like Apple and its freaking app store, wanting to keep controlling everything even after he's supposedly given or sold it to you. Apple also seems to be doing so to try to maintain a seamless, safe, and cheaper to support user experience, with maybe a dash of more ulterior motives thrown in, and it chafes when Apple does it too -- both users and developers have had plenty of complaints about Apple's app store policies, bricking jailbroken phones, and things of that nature.

I don't like it either.

But as I said, it's his app to do with what he wants.

In my opinion, Duncan is making a mistake by adopting an Apple-like design philosophy that involves trying to control the product after it's left his hands.

Agreed in this case.  It is free software, so placing an expiration date on it is silly.

But I do a lot of things others call silly, so I can respect his right to behave in a silly fashion without getting upset at him for it.

No question he is limiting the appeal of his software by behaving thus.

It's his mistake to make, but a) I do think it is one and b) I don't see anything morally questionable about jailbreaking his app, any more than there is a moral issue with jailbreaking an iPhone, nor in aiding others in jailbreaking theirs.

Perhaps you do, and that is then your mistake to make (or at least in my opinion it's a mistake).

Anyway, carry on, but please do give this at least a little thought.

I see a contradiction here - on one hand you say it's his mistake to make, but on the other hand you see nothing wrong with hacking the software to violate his right to make such mistakes?  I never heard Hacking called Jailbreaking before, but hacking is hacking.  If you are going to do so, it's best to have the permission of the software owner/creator first.  If permission is given, I'll post what I did.  If not, I will not.  That's why I got permission before even attempting this!  There is a huge difference between acting with and without the knowledge of the software owner in this case.

Remember - you do NOT own such software.  It is Licensed to you.  And the Creator retains the ownership of the actual software.

This is true of ALL software.  Except open source, which this clearly is not.

Your statements sound like an endorsement of illegal hacking.

Please do not endorse illegal activity on this forum   cop
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
Duncan C
Fractal Fanatic
****
Posts: 348



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2010, 02:58:43 AM »

I don't get this. The program's "security"? If I install a program on my computer, I want its "security" to be protecting it from other people on my behalf, not protecting it from me on someone else's behalf. I don't consider the latter to be legitimate at all. My hardware, my CPU cycles, my choice what the machine does with them. Program developers don't magically get some kind of sublet rights to my machine. That would be like letting a furniture maker or appliance maker have a key to my house and the ability to limit, post-sale, what I could do with the furniture or appliance. Not only is there a "why should I let someone exert any control over something after they've sold it to me?" question there, there's also a "why should I trust them?" one.

I can see this Duncan fellow not wanting to have to support multiple versions at once, but forcing people to upgrade and trying to actually physically restrain them from using an older version if they want to seems quite extreme. Duncan can always just tell people that only the latest version is supported, sorry, etc.

Instead, he's acting like Apple and its freaking app store, wanting to keep controlling everything even after he's supposedly given or sold it to you. Apple also seems to be doing so to try to maintain a seamless, safe, and cheaper to support user experience, with maybe a dash of more ulterior motives thrown in, and it chafes when Apple does it too -- both users and developers have had plenty of complaints about Apple's app store policies, bricking jailbroken phones, and things of that nature.

In my opinion, Duncan is making a mistake by adopting an Apple-like design philosophy that involves trying to control the product after it's left his hands.

It's his mistake to make, but a) I do think it is one and b) I don't see anything morally questionable about jailbreaking his app, any more than there is a moral issue with jailbreaking an iPhone, nor in aiding others in jailbreaking theirs.

Perhaps you do, and that is then your mistake to make (or at least in my opinion it's a mistake).

Anyway, carry on, but please do give this at least a little thought.

Dude, you're coming on awfully strong and sanctimonious. How about you tone things down a bit, and stop slinging mud. I thought we were all friends here.

I choose to make this app freely available. I would ultimately like to finish it to professional standards and actually make some money from it, but I haven't had the time to do that. In the meantime, I am happy to share my efforts with other fractal enthusiasts, free of charge.

While I am still developing the app, it is very useful to be able to retire old versions. I have made a number of changes that are not compatible with older versions. (For example, the app allows you to generate a custom URL that launches the app and recreates a plot. I've changed the URL format several times in ways that older versions would not understand. Newer versions understand old-format URLs, but old versions do not understand new-format URLs)

The app I provide is a time-limited free trial. That is the license I provide to the users of my software. If you don't like that, don't use the app. It's that simple.

Software is usually licensed, not purchased. When you buy most software, you don't actually buy the software at all. Instead, you buy a license to use the software. The copyright owner still retains ownership of that software, and you agree to an end user license agreement (EULA) as part of purchasing a license to run it. If you don't like those terms, you are free to NOT buy products that use those terms. If you purchase software (and therefore agree to the EULA) you are bound to follow it's terms, and breaking those terms is a breach of contract, subject to civil and possibly criminal action. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.

I am a software developer by profession. I take intellectual property rights very seriously. It is how I earn my livelihood. "Jailbreaking" an app is a breach of contract. It's illegal and wrong. It is different than unlocking a device so that you can install software on it that you are legally entitled to own, as the US courts have recently decided

I happen to agree with your objections about Apple's restrictive distribution of apps for their mobile platforms. When I buy a computer, (and these mobile devices are very definitely computers) I expect to be able to create/buy, install, and run any software I want on that computer, from any legal source. I resent Apple making themselves the sole arbiter of what software I can run on my computer. There are many good things about Apple's hardware and software, but if they ever try to move this policy to their "real" computers (desktops and laptops) I will abandon Apple and not look back. I'll take my business elsewhere.
Logged

Regards,

Duncan C
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2010, 04:44:33 AM »

It's not interfering with your hardware or cpu cycles in any way.

Not letting you do as you see fit with your hardware or cpu cycles is interfering.

Quote
I don't like it either.

But as I said, it's his app to do with what he wants.

He may have written it, but once a copy is on your machine, that copy is yours, not his. You seem to feel he still somehow has ownership of it after it's changed hands, and I find that very odd.

Quote
Agreed in this case.  It is free software, so placing an expiration date on it is silly.

But I do a lot of things others call silly, so I can respect his right to behave in a silly fashion without getting upset at him for it.

No question he is limiting the appeal of his software by behaving thus.

If we disagree, it is not here; it is with the notion that you don't have the right to override his silliness on your own machine.

If a furniture maker deliberately made wobbly chairs, that would be silly. If someone bought one of those chairs but didn't fix the wobble, and furthermore didn't tell anyone else how to fix the wobble, because of a belief that somehow they didn't have the right to fix the wobble because "they're his chairs and he has a right to be silly", I would consider that silly, too. I say he has a right to make his chairs wobbly and his customers have a right to make any one of these chairs un-wobbly after taking ownership of it. We have the right to modify our property in ways that don't harm others (make a fire hazard, etc.). That's what it means for something to be "our property". Our chairs, our computers, our (copies of) software, etc.

Quote
I see a contradiction here - on one hand you say it's his mistake to make, but on the other hand you see nothing wrong with hacking the software to violate his right to make such mistakes?

You make it sound like I was advocating breaking into Duncan's computer and changing the source code or something! I'm only talking about fixing your copy and helping other fix their copies. Like fixing those wobbly chairs you bought, not breaking into the factory and fiddling with the machines to cause them to build the chairs differently.

Quote
I never heard Hacking called Jailbreaking before, but hacking is hacking.

Modifying your own computer and the software running on your own computer is not "hacking" in the colloquial, pejorative sense of that term. It's very different from breaking into somebody else's computer and messing with their stuff.

Quote
If you are going to do so, it's best to have the permission of the software owner/creator first.

?!

I don't need permission from the construction company to build an extension to my house. I don't need permission from the manufacturer to fix a wobbly chair. I don't need permission from GM to rotate the tires on my car. I don't need permission from Schwinn to repaint my bicycle. I don't need permission from HP to put another gigabyte of RAM in my computer. Why should I need permission from Duncan to alter my copy of some software he wrote?

Quote
Remember - you do NOT own such software.

Sure you do. It's your copy to do with as you please. What do you think it is, a rental or something? The only reason you can't modify something you rented, normally, is because if you modify it you modify it for everyone and not just you. Like, if you rent a video and scratch the dvd, the scratch will make it skip for everyone who rents that particular dvd after you. If you rent a snowblower and replace some parts, you've changed that snowblower for everyone who rents that particular snowblower after you. But your copy of some software is yours; if you change it you can't f&@! it up for anybody else the way you can if you fiddle with a borrowed dvd or a rented snowblower.

Quote
Your statements sound like an endorsement of illegal hacking.

Please do not endorse illegal activity on this forum   cop

I endorsed doing as you please with your own computer and whatever you have on it, not breaking into someone else's computer and messing with their stuff on it without their permission.

I think the distinction is pretty clear here.

My machine -- my stuff. Someone else changing it around on me without asking -- bad. Me changing it around -- not bad. Someone else trying to stop me changing it around -- just as bad as someone else changing it around on me without asking.

Dude, you're coming on awfully strong and sanctimonious.

Pardon me, but when people suggest I don't have the right to do as I please with my own computer hardware it bothers me a bit.

Quote
How about you tone things down a bit, and stop slinging mud.

Who's slinging mud? I suggested that certain behaviors were a mistake, but didn't accuse anyone of anything worse than possibly having slightly poor judgment or engaging in short-term thinking. I certainly haven't accused anybody of acting in bad faith. Your use of the phrase "slinging mud" on the other hand edges close to being such behavior itself.

Quote
While I am still developing the app, it is very useful to be able to retire old versions. I have made a number of changes that are not compatible with older versions. (For example, the app allows you to generate a custom URL that launches the app and recreates a plot. I've changed the URL format several times in ways that older versions would not understand. Newer versions understand old-format URLs, but old versions do not understand new-format URLs)

That may be convenient for you, from a support perspective, but it's at the expense of your users' freedom, including their right to skip a version with a known bug or problem and wait for the next one among other things.

It's very much Apple's sort of design philosophy and it rubs quite a lot of people, besides me, the wrong way. Users being nannied and told what to do instead of being allowed to do things that maybe the company/author/whatever thinks are bad ideas and learn from their own mistakes.

Quote
Software is usually licensed, not purchased. When you buy most software, you don't actually buy the software at all. Instead, you buy a license to use the software. The copyright owner still retains ownership of that software, and you agree to an end user license agreement (EULA) as part of purchasing a license to run it. If you don't like those terms, you are free to NOT buy products that use those terms. If you purchase software (and therefore agree to the EULA) you are bound to follow it's terms, and breaking those terms is a breach of contract, subject to civil and possibly criminal action. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.

That's a legal theory used by the likes of Microsoft to try to impose restrictions above and beyond what copyright law actually allows. It is also, if you'll pardon my bluntness, a crock. If you get a shrinkwrapped box of Microsoft Office at the store, take it to checkout, pay, and leave with it, that's a purchase, not a "rental" or a "licensing". You own those copies, just as you own books or movies you buy at the book store or video store. Copyright law says you can't just make copies and sell them yourself and stuff like that -- however you can use your copy as you see fit and to resell it when you're done with it.

When you go to use it, it will generally pop up some box purporting to take away some of your property rights in your copy, but that's a far cry from actually signing a contract with Microsoft. Not only is there no meeting of the minds, you don't even get anything for "agreeing". According to Title 17 Section 117(a):

Code:
It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program
provided:

   (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
       utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
       that it is used in no other manner, or

   (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
       all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
       of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Translated from legalese into English, that means you don't need Microsoft's permission to install Office and run it (though both acts make copies) because these copies are created "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program". Which means the thing you're supposedly getting (Microsoft's permission) in exchange for "signing" away your property rights in that copy of Office is worthless. Which makes the "contract" one-sided (as well as unsigned, unwitnessed, and so forth).

The second subclause lets you back up your computer/the install discs/whatever, so long as you don't keep those if you resell your used copy.

Long story short, there's nothing remotely resembling a real contract being negotiated and signed here, so it's not a breach of contract to break Microsoft's various "terms and conditions". It's your copy on your computer to do with as you please, just as you can scribble margin notes in a book you buy (no copyright violation here) or rip out pages, or use a dvd you bought as a coaster or to prop up a slightly short table leg to stop the thing from wobbling.

Quote
I am a software developer by profession. I take intellectual property rights very seriously. It is how I earn my livelihood.

I very much doubt that, actually. When was the last time you got a royalty statement? Thought so. You earn a salary like most software developers.

Quote
"Jailbreaking" an app is a breach of contract.

It can't be, when there's no contract to breach.

Quote
It's illegal

No, it's not. It's no more illegal than buying and then defacing a book or a dvd. Your copy, yours to mess with as you see fit. Distributing copies of it yourself would be copyright infringement but that's a different matter. And both breach of contract and copyright infringement are normally civil, not criminal, matters anyway.

Quote
and wrong.

It's no more morally wrong than ripping a page out of a book you bought. It may be contrary to the author's wishes, and he may be unhappy to hear of people treating his beloved novel that way, but it is not wrong.

Quote
It is different than unlocking a device so that you can install software on it that you are legally entitled to own, as the US courts have recently decided

It's no different. My stuff to do with as I please. My machine. My book. My disc. My chair. My table. My car. My bike. My copy of a piece of software. In some cases it would infringe an intellectual property right if I were to make copies for other people, but those laws do not extend to limiting what I can do with my own copies in private, and for a very good reason: if they did they would undermine, rather than work together with, normal property rights. In fact they contain explicit exemptions, like the aforementioned Title 17 Section 117(a), to reaffirm what should be common sense anyway, which is that your own copies are yours to do with as you see fit within your own private domain.

Quote
I happen to agree with your objections about Apple's restrictive distribution of apps for their mobile platforms.

And yet you act the same way? That's troubling. You don't like it when the hardware vendor restricts you, but you're all too happy to do the same kind of thing to the people on the next rung down -- the users of the software you write. Can you not see the symmetry here? In fact there's four levels here; above Apple are the cellular carriers and they often try to bully handset manufacturers into limiting the capabilities of the phones, to try to force the users to use expensive data services instead of, say, USB or bluetooth connections to get their photos off their phone. Apple has the clout to make handsets that allow easy data portability, but they try to impose their own restrictions on users and developers. And then developers like you chafe at Apple's restrictions but try to layer on another set of 'em for the end user. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Quote
When I buy a computer, (and these mobile devices are very definitely computers) I expect to be able to create/buy, install, and run any software I want on that computer, from any legal source. I resent Apple making themselves the sole arbiter of what software I can run on my computer.

When I buy software, I expect to be able to use it as I see fit, and modify it to better suit my use for it, in any way that does not infringe copyright. I resent software developers (particularly Microsoft) trying to make themselves the sole arbiter of what functionality I can use, when, how often, and under what circumstances in my copy of e.g. Office.

The law gives them the right to say I can't go around making and selling copies, and things like that, but that's it. Nowhere in it are they granted control over private use of a copy. They try to claim you need their permission to make a copy to install it, and then condition that permission on accepting a burdensome "contract" full of extra restrictions including restrictions on private use, but the fact is that the law explicitly permits making the private copies of software that are needed for its installation and use, AND making private backup copies, so I do not need Microsoft's permission to make these copies and do not therefore feel bound by their so-called "contract", legally or morally.

Quote
There are many good things about Apple's hardware and software, but if they ever try to move this policy to their "real" computers (desktops and laptops) I will abandon Apple and not look back. I'll take my business elsewhere.

They're moving slowly in the opposite direction, if anything. I heard somewhere that Apple used to behave just as badly with Mac software and Mac developers as they now do with the iPhone app store, and gradually relented. History will hopefully repeat itself with the app store.

As for you, I don't see what harm it really does you if you stop trying to force restrictions on your users' use of the software you write.

  • You can just tell them that older versions than the current one are not officially supported. Then ignore pleas for help from users with outdated versions, except to suggest they upgrade. Then you avoid the support headaches you fear if people are not all using the same version.
  • As for if you later want to sell copies, if free copies of version 0.6 beta are a serious competitor to $19.99 copies of version 4.1 with three times as many features, then begging your pardon but version 4.1 f&@!ing blows and isn't worth the price tag. In other words, if 4.1 is genuinely a vast improvement over 0.6 beta then you needn't fear; and if it's not, then you're really charging people $19.99 not to brick their existing, good-enough-for-them copy rather than charging people $19.99 for a vastly improved version. The latter is asking payment for goods; the former is extortion, just as surely as if you went around telling people "Nice copy you have there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it" in your best gangster-imitation voice and costume.
  • And with that in mind, which would you buy from, a chairmaker whose older, cheaper chairs have flooded the market who sells a more expensive, vastly better chair, or a chairmaker who occasionally charges all his old customers twenty bucks not to bust into their home and take an axe to the chair they'd already bought a while back, in order to then try to sell them the new, more expensive one? I can tell you one of these businesses focuses on providing value and is likely to be liked by customers; the other focuses on trying to squeeze money out of anyone it can is is likely to get a very nasty reputation, even if they claim some contractual fine-print makes their extortion-like tactics legal and even moral. Microsoft, without quite going to that extreme, has gotten a notoriously bad reputation for greed by behaving in similar ways, trying to corral and control their customers instead of focusing on providing value. You have a choice as to which kind you want to be, a company like Sun or Red Hat with a mostly good reputation for providing value or a company like Microsoft or Apple with a tarnished reputation for focusing more on corralling and controlling people in order to squeeze money out of them in preference to using a good value proposition to part them from their money.

No offense is intended with any of the above, by the way -- just advice offered in good faith, plus a rebuttal of the more dubious legal and moral arguments for why we shouldn't modify our own stuff.

If you can offer cogent and lucid counterarguments, by all means, go ahead, but anyone responding with namecalling or other uncivil behavior will not change my mind about anything (except, possibly, I'll revise my opinion of them downward). So no flames, please. I feel I have tried to avoid flaming, while stating the facts and making my arguments calling them as I see them (and maybe being a bit blunt at times); I ask that others try to avoid flaming also.
Logged

Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2010, 11:10:23 AM »

This topic has been split off from the topic it was derailing.

Any further discussion can continue here, please.

Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2010, 12:10:19 PM »

If you can offer cogent and lucid counterarguments, by all means, go ahead, but anyone responding with namecalling or other uncivil behavior will not change my mind about anything (except, possibly, I'll revise my opinion of them downward). So no flames, please. I feel I have tried to avoid flaming, while stating the facts and making my arguments calling them as I see them (and maybe being a bit blunt at times); I ask that others try to avoid flaming also.

OK - how does your position differ from, say, downloading Adobe's Multi Thousand Dollar Suite of programs for a free 30 day trial - then, after 30 days pass, you do something to the software to make it run forever?

Is that not Stealing Thousands of Dollars?

In that example, you agreed to use the program suite for 30 days when installing it, then buying it if you wish to continue using it thereafter. But by your logic - as I see it - you are under no obligation to abide by that agreement because "nobody witnessed the Contract" and because it is "yours" now that it is on your computer.

What then stops you from decompiling it, and using knowledge gleaned from their source code to writ your own version of Photoshop and Friends?  Or even selling those programs after you write them?

There have to be limits on what you can do with such software.  Where do you see those limits as existing?  Where do you draw the line and call an action illegal?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is how your argument appears to me.
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
hobold
Fractal Bachius
*
Posts: 573


« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2010, 07:14:47 PM »

Not letting you do as you see fit with your hardware or cpu cycles is interfering.
As far as I know, the legal situation in most of the western hemisphere actually allows you to do as you see fit. You are legally entitled to crack any copy protection, and to work around expiration dates and other artificial limitations.

But you have to do it yourself, even make some of the tools yourself, because what's prohibited is the distribution of copies (both cracked payware and tools specifically for cracking). Technically, your homebrew cracked version is already an illegal copy. But since you don't distribute it, no one will ever be able to prove the accusation, and consequently no one will ever legally judge you.

I am not a lawyer. My explanation may be a mess, but that is largely caused by the whole thing being a mess. Immaterial wares just don't behave like the tangible stuff that most of our laws were made for. Before the internet, data was always tied to a tangible medium; and methods and processes could not easily be detached from the artisans who applied them. These days, copying bits is so cheap as to be effectively free. And methods/processes can be encoded into programs, effectively turning them into data as well.

In the old days, the act of making a copy was involved and difficult enough to act as a physical barrier. These times are gone. But the law, and society in general, and even technology itself (think of all the privacy issues and security breaches that you keep hearing of every single week), have big trouble keeping up.
Logged
Thunderwave
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2010, 07:32:27 PM »

Is it just me or is any hack on privately owned software illegal to discuss openly on a public forum such as this?
I should remember a time when there were some great game makers out there in Japanese only, and even translating them is illegal.   Certainly what you do privately is up to you but that must stay private or you risk the chance off being sued.  It's like buying a Rembrandt and then painting over it.  Just because you own it does not give you the right to change it.
Logged
Bent-Winged Angel
Fractal Bachius
*
Posts: 561



« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2010, 07:40:56 PM »

You own it ; but it will at times come with "terms of use"
Logged

jwm-art
Iterator
*
Posts: 171



WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2010, 07:50:47 PM »

But you have to do it yourself, even make some of the tools yourself, because what's prohibited is the distribution of copies (both cracked payware and tools specifically for cracking). Technically, your homebrew cracked version is already an illegal copy. But since you don't distribute it, no one will ever be able to prove the accusation, and consequently no one will ever legally judge you.

Are you saying cracking tools themselves are illegal? John http://www.openwall.com/john/ springs to mind, but that's a password cracker so slightly different. This is supposed to go to show the tools may not be illegal - they can also be presented as security enhancing rather than cracking tools. A sysadmin would use this to detect which of the users on a system use weak passwords and advise them accordingly. Try also a google search for wireless+cracking+ubuntu.
Logged
Thunderwave
Guest
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2010, 08:00:34 PM »

When you talk about open-source projects, that is different.  They have different agreements and to work on open source is to change freely and share freely (mostly) and with acknowledgments all under the gnu license.  Though there are software programs to purchase that is based on open-source projects, such as SUSE-Linux, which follow their agreements.

Cracking and hacking is not illegal if it's allowable by license only.
Logged
Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2010, 10:30:53 PM »

Is it just me or is any hack on privately owned software illegal to discuss openly on a public forum such as this?
I should remember a time when there were some great game makers out there in Japanese only, and even translating them is illegal.   Certainly what you do privately is up to you but that must stay private or you risk the chance off being sued.  It's like buying a Rembrandt and then painting over it.  Just because you own it does not give you the right to change it.

If I understand the law on these matters, it's only illegal to discuss specific ways to hack specific software.

Not to have a general discussion as is taking place here.

Problems arise on sites that do things like post working serial numbers, or post patches, or even posting actual cracked software  (or even posting links to such things hosted elsewhere).  All of the above is illegal.

My request that a member refrain from endorsing illegal hacking was just that.  A request.

He's welcome to endorse it if that's how he feels, but it goes against the spirit of this forum.

We had a member recently post a request for a working serial number for Ultra Fractal 5.

That request was for illegal activity, and he was not requested to stop.  He was told to stop, and given a Ban Warning over it!

There is a world of difference between the two.

As for painting over a Rembrandt, Yes.  You'd have every right to do that if you paid for the original painting legally.  It would be Evil, but Legal.

I recall a furor in the Art World when somebody bought an expensive and famous painting, cut it up into little squares, and sold the squares individually!

What he did was Reprehensible, but Legal.
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Most powerful computer possible for a reasonable price General Discussion « 1 2 3 4 5 » Dinkydau 66 16981 Last post May 19, 2012, 09:19:20 AM
by Dinkydau
The Infinite Computer Virus Underground Wildstyle Fractured Fractals 0 1041 Last post May 12, 2012, 05:41:51 PM
by Fractured Fractals
One of the world's first computer in pictures Non-Fractal related Chit-Chat klixon 0 796 Last post June 16, 2012, 02:25:16 PM
by klixon
Computer Spec. requirements for fractalling Help & Support fatspoon 1 418 Last post September 13, 2015, 08:58:29 PM
by TheRedshiftRider

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.352 seconds with 24 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.018s, 2q)