In article <AA33EEDB1A1BA46D.0D72DACC6A1C38FF.8D955CB427728...@lp.airnews.net>, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> wrote:
> If anyone has a licensed copy they're looking to > sell, please let me know.
Hmm... why don't you like to buy one directly from Franz? The current version btw is 5.01. If you strongly need to own a second-hand package, make a search through this newsgroup archives. I recall a guy who wanted to get rid of his copy some months ago.
Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one. I think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much if I really really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway, and b) that's alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to get rid of theirs I could get it for much cheaper.
"Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote in message
> In article > <AA33EEDB1A1BA46D.0D72DACC6A1C38FF.8D955CB427728...@lp.airnews.net>, > "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> wrote: > > If anyone has a licensed copy they're looking to > > sell, please let me know.
> Hmm... why don't you like to buy one directly from Franz? The current > version btw is 5.01. > If you strongly need to own a second-hand package, make a search > through this newsgroup archives. I recall a guy who wanted to get rid > of his copy some months ago.
In article <4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DCC793D4D1.593A48AFDF2C5...@lp.airnews.net>, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> writes:
> Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one. I > think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much if I really > really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway, and b) that's > alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to get rid of theirs > I could get it for much cheaper.
any particular reason why you want acl5.0? there are a few other lisp implementations available for win32 (e.g.clisp, corman)
--
Hartmann Schaffer
It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
> "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> writes: > > Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one. I > > think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much if I really > > really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway, and b) that's > > alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to get rid of theirs > > I could get it for much cheaper.
> any particular reason why you want acl5.0? there are a few other lisp > implementations available for win32 (e.g.clisp, corman)
Because I'm spoiled probably. I've been using VC++ for some years now, and I've become accustomed to having all that power at my fingertips. Allegro seems to be one of the most powerful and easy to use environments on the market, so I want it. I've been using the trial for a while, and now I want the whole thing. I've tried Harlequin LispWorks, I've tried Corman, I've tried clisp, I just don't like any of them. I like Allegro. :)
* "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
| I think it's something like $800.
why don't you ask them, instead? are you afraid to talk to honest people when you aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd and say you have a criminal mind?
you actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1 for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if you didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> > | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
My optimistic guess is that Zachary didn't think that a developer license is not negotiable, which is (true or pretended) naiveness. It is, however, license holders' responsibility not to sell if it's excluded in the contract.
Larry Elmore wrote: > What laws, contracts and/or licenses?
Every piece of software comes with a license.
> I'm not very familiar with what > might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making > something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a > contract seems very unreasonable.
Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button, broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree. There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived expensive or not.
> Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the > Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of its price tag? Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps? It's the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to pay. Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the very changes you seem to wish. And if you became bitter and aren't interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation more difficult?
> the whole thing. I've tried Harlequin LispWorks, I've tried Corman, I've > tried clisp, I just don't like any of them. I like Allegro. :)
I'm curious to know what you like about Allegro better than LispWorks. I'm planning to try them both soon and want to see if I notice the same differences.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:11:18 -0500, Robert Monfera <monf...@fisec.com> wrote:
>Larry Elmore wrote:
>> What laws, contracts and/or licenses?
>Every piece of software comes with a license.
You must believe that the license is valid for the rest of this argument to make sense. Many people believe that the extent to which we protect `intellectual property' in this country goes beyond that which the government legitimately has the authority to regulate...
The exact text from the US constitution is:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The argument is simply that this protection does nothing to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When applied to software, this argument may not be unreasonable.
>> I'm not very familiar with what >> might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making >> something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a >> contract seems very unreasonable.
>Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button, >broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree. >There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived >expensive or not.
Most of these `agreements' require you to purchase the product before you see the terms of the contract. If this is enforcible it shouldn't be.
>> Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the >> Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
>Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of >its price tag? Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps? It's >the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits >and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they >can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to >pay. Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of >contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the >very changes you seem to wish. And if you became bitter and aren't >interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation >more difficult?
I think you missed the point here. I don't believe the poster was ignorant of copyright law, he just didn't believe in it. You can disagree.
-- Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-...@SprocketShop.com> -------------------------------------------- Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. -- George Washington
No kidding. I've just never seen one that prohibits you from selling the product to someone else as long as you completely remove the software from your system.
> > I'm not very familiar with what > > might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making > > something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a > > contract seems very unreasonable.
> Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button, > broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree. > There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived > expensive or not.
Duh. Did you actually read what I wrote? I only said that giving up any right to sell something I've purchased _merely by opening the shrink-wrap_ seems extreme to me. I seriously wonder if that would stand up to a vigorous legal challenge? Or has it? (That's _just_ a question)
> > Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the > > Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
> Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of > its price tag?
Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? If I was angry at all, it was only at Erik for the rude and snotty way he responded to someone's question. Whatever Franz's licensing terms are, I assure you they're not common knowledge! And I'm certainly not angry because ACL's price tag is more than I can afford. That'd be like getting pissed off at Porsche because I can only afford a 14-year old Oldsmobile. (P.S. I'm _not_ pissed at Porsche! I _do_ wish I had the money for one after more important things are taken care of.)
> Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps?
Just _where_ did I publicly (or even privately) flame Franz? Where?
> It's > the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits > and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they > can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to > pay.
Duh. Where did I say this was wrong? Where did I bemoan anything except my own lack of funds?? You're reading a lot more into what I wrote than is actually there!
> Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of > contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the > very changes you seem to wish.
Oh Good Lord. Is it now almost criminal for someone _not yet in_ part of a field to be ignorant of some aspects of it, and to question those parts that seem strange? And what changes do you think I'm wishing for? I'd like to know, because I'm not aware of any! At the very most, all I've said is that making something non-transferable _simply by opening the damned thing_ seems unreasonable to me, and if that's truly the case with ACL or some others, then even when I do have the money, I will do business elsewhere, if possible. Where do you get the idea I'm willing to break the law or encourage others to do so? There's a number of laws that I think are unreasonable, but you don't see me going out and breaking them, either!
> And if you became bitter and aren't > interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation > more difficult?
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> > | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
> | I think it's something like $800.
> why don't you ask them, instead? are you afraid to talk to honest people > when you aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd and say you have a criminal > mind?
> you actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1 > for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if you > didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
> #:Erik
Who said anything about breaking laws and contracts and licenses? If I pay another person for his/her software, and he hands me over the box, manuals, original media, and either destroys or gives me all copies of original media, no laws were broken and no licenses were violated. It is perfectly legal to buy/sell software this way.
Brush up on your legal knowledge before you start flaming.
> "Erik Naggum" <e...@naggum.no> wrote in message > news:3159728504708010@naggum.no... > > * "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> > > | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for > one.
> > but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
> > | I think it's something like $800.
> > why don't you ask them, instead? are you afraid to talk to honest > people > > when you aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd and say you have a > criminal > > mind?
> > you actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1 > > for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if > you > > didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
> > #:Erik
> Who said anything about breaking laws and contracts and licenses? If I pay > another person for his/her software, and he hands me over the box, manuals, > original media, and either destroys or gives me all copies of original > media, no laws were broken and no licenses were violated. It is perfectly > legal to buy/sell software this way.
Woohoo. Don't I feel dumb now? I didn't know developer licenses were non-transferrable, as Mr. Monfera pointed out. Is this true of all licenses for ACL?
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> > | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
> | I think it's something like $800.
> why don't you ask them, instead? are you afraid to talk to honest people > when you aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd and say you have a criminal > mind?
> you actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1 > for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if you > didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
You aren't very happy to be alive are you? I'd buy you a hooker if I knew you. I don't know where you got the idea that I had "concluded that I had to cheat and steal". Especially since I mentioned in the original post that I was willing to pay Franz's price if I was unable to find someone willing to sell me their box.
Of course you are right. It is like buying a book. You can buy it and sell it as you like, at least in Germany. You can make copies. But using the software on two machines at the same time would break the law. In Germany, the general scheme is this: You have certain rights as a customer. All agreements that limit your legal rights are considered invalid.
But you must be new to this newsgroup. Otherwise you would not be surprised at being flamed for things you vahe never said.
Janos Blazi
Larry Elmore <ljelm...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 88h7un$b8...@news.campuscwix.net...
> No kidding. I've just never seen one that prohibits you from selling the > product to someone else as long as you completely remove the software from > your system.
> > > I'm not very familiar with what > > > might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making > > > something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a > > > contract seems very unreasonable.
> > Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button, > > broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree. > > There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived > > expensive or not.
> Duh. Did you actually read what I wrote? I only said that giving up any > right to sell something I've purchased _merely by opening the shrink-wrap_ > seems extreme to me. I seriously wonder if that would stand up to a vigorous > legal challenge? Or has it? (That's _just_ a question)
> > > Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the > > > Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
> > Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of > > its price tag?
> Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? If I was angry at all, it was only > at Erik for the rude and snotty way he responded to someone's question. > Whatever Franz's licensing terms are, I assure you they're not common > knowledge! And I'm certainly not angry because ACL's price tag is more than > I can afford. That'd be like getting pissed off at Porsche because I can > only afford a 14-year old Oldsmobile. (P.S. I'm _not_ pissed at Porsche! I > _do_ wish I had the money for one after more important things are taken care > of.)
> > Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps?
> Just _where_ did I publicly (or even privately) flame Franz? Where?
> > It's > > the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits > > and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they > > can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to > > pay.
> Duh. Where did I say this was wrong? Where did I bemoan anything except my > own lack of funds?? You're reading a lot more into what I wrote than is > actually there!
> > Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of > > contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the > > very changes you seem to wish.
> Oh Good Lord. Is it now almost criminal for someone _not yet in_ part of a > field to be ignorant of some aspects of it, and to question those parts that > seem strange? And what changes do you think I'm wishing for? I'd like to > know, because I'm not aware of any! At the very most, all I've said is that > making something non-transferable _simply by opening the damned thing_ seems > unreasonable to me, and if that's truly the case with ACL or some others, > then even when I do have the money, I will do business elsewhere, if > possible. Where do you get the idea I'm willing to break the law or > encourage others to do so? There's a number of laws that I think are > unreasonable, but you don't see me going out and breaking them, either!
> > And if you became bitter and aren't > > interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation > > more difficult?
> Huh?
> Larry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> "Erik Naggum" <e...@naggum.no> wrote in message > news:3159728504708010@naggum.no... > > * "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@bindview.com> > > | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for > one.
> > but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
> > | I think it's something like $800.
> > why don't you ask them, instead? are you afraid to talk to honest > people > > when you aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd and say you have a > criminal > > mind?
> > you actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1 > > for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if > you > > didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
> You aren't very happy to be alive are you? I'd buy you a hooker if I knew > you. I don't know where you got the idea that I had "concluded that I had > to cheat and steal". Especially since I mentioned in the original post that > I was willing to pay Franz's price if I was unable to find someone willing > to sell me their box.
> - Zach
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Zachary Turner wrote: > I didn't know developer licenses were > non-transferrable, as Mr. Monfera pointed out.
To be specific, a license may or may not be transferable, depending on the agreement, and of course you can't tell it as the prospective buyer - it's the prospective seller's responsibility. Of course, you'd want to see the license for details when buying, irrespective of who you buy from. I suspect that (developer) licenses in general may well be non-transferable, but I've never checked.
> > I didn't know developer licenses were > > non-transferrable, as Mr. Monfera pointed out.
> To be specific, a license may or may not be transferable, depending on > the agreement, and of course you can't tell it as the prospective buyer > - it's the prospective seller's responsibility. Of course, you'd want > to see the license for details when buying, irrespective of who you buy > from. I suspect that (developer) licenses in general may well be > non-transferable, but I've never checked.
Well, in the situation that the license is non-transferrable, then obviously the only viable option would be for me to purchase the software from Franz, Inc. However, let it be stated for the record that I never intended on obtaining an illegal copy of the software, which is why I plainly stated in the original post that I'm willing to pay Franz's price for the software if absolutely necessary.
[thoughts on protection of intellectual property are noted, but are irrelevant - let's assume we can't change laws on c.l.l.]
> >Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button, > >broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree. > >There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived > >expensive or not.
> Most of these `agreements' require you to purchase the product before > you see the terms of the contract.
I believe you wanted to say "Most companies require you to pay the purchase price before you see the terms of the contract."
This is true and unfortunate (especially the way OEMs make you pay for Microsoft products), but chances are you have the right not to agree with the license and simply return it for a refund before opening the envelope etc.. Personally I also don't like doing it this way, so sometimes I read agreements or clarify terms in advance. Probably we don't disagree here.
In any case, it's also irrelevant for the issue at hand, as obviously people holding licenses have already entered into an agreement.
> If this is enforcible it shouldn't be.
I understand your opinion, but now, after rephrasing your sentence above, I'm not sure what "enforcible" is referring to.
> LE: Ah, but this is the > LE: Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...] [...] > I don't believe the poster was > ignorant of copyright law, he just didn't believe in it. > You can disagree.
Yes, I do:
LM: Do I have a criminal mind because I've _never_ bought a new LM: automobile, but always a used one at a much better price?
When someone buys a car, he will own the car. When someone buys a license, he will usually be permitted to use the software - maybe he'll be permitted to transfer this _right_, maybe not. Believing that buying software and buying cars are similar things, or owning a used car and owning a transferred software are similar fits in the category of ignorance (being uneducated, unaware or uninformed on something), whether we think in terms of relevant US law or just the fundamental nature of the deal. Please don't think I imply something beyond what ignorance means when I use this word.
Larry Elmore wrote: > > Every piece of software comes with a license.
> No kidding. I've just never seen one that prohibits you from selling > the product to someone else as long as you completely remove the > software from your system.
I yield to your experience, if you considered that the lack of specific prohibition usually does not imply granted rights.
> Duh. Did you actually read what I wrote? I only said that giving up > any right to sell something I've purchased _merely by opening the > shrink-wrap_ seems extreme to me. I seriously wonder if that would > stand up to a vigorous legal challenge? Or has it? (That's _just_ a > question) > > Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable > > because of its price tag?
> Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? [...] > You're reading a lot more into what I wrote than is > actually there!
Thanks, I am glad to learn that. Your vivid words on credit history analysis, vigorous legal challenges and security checks have misled me.
I still think it's better for us to express trust in laws in addition to merely obeying them. If law does not prohibit it, vendors may restrict license transfers* for valid reasons, and calling restrictions unknown to us _extreme_ is not something that builds confidence that they will be unconditionally observed. (I'm not implying anything about anybody.)
If limitation of transfer rights seems impossible and extreme to you, and you would not mind obtaining a license for a lower price, how come we have seen only one guy looking to buy a used development tool on c.l.l. during years, and it wasn't you?
* I'm not stating that laws allow transfer restrictions or that ACL licenses are non-transferable, but would not be surprised to learn so.
> [thoughts on protection of intellectual property are noted, but are > irrelevant - let's assume we can't change laws on c.l.l.]
> > >Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button, > > >broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree. > > >There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived > > >expensive or not.
> > Most of these `agreements' require you to purchase the product before > > you see the terms of the contract.
> I believe you wanted to say "Most companies require you to pay the > purchase price before you see the terms of the contract."
> This is true and unfortunate (especially the way OEMs make you pay for > Microsoft products), but chances are you have the right not to agree > with the license and simply return it for a refund before opening the > envelope etc.. Personally I also don't like doing it this way, so > sometimes I read agreements or clarify terms in advance. Probably we > don't disagree here.
> In any case, it's also irrelevant for the issue at hand, as obviously > people holding licenses have already entered into an agreement.
> > If this is enforcible it shouldn't be.
> I understand your opinion, but now, after rephrasing your sentence > above, I'm not sure what "enforcible" is referring to.
> > LE: Ah, but this is the > > LE: Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...] > [...] > > I don't believe the poster was > > ignorant of copyright law, he just didn't believe in it. > > You can disagree.
> Yes, I do:
> LM: Do I have a criminal mind because I've _never_ bought a new > LM: automobile, but always a used one at a much better price?
> When someone buys a car, he will own the car. When someone buys a > license, he will usually be permitted to use the software - maybe he'll > be permitted to transfer this _right_, maybe not. Believing that buying > software and buying cars are similar things, or owning a used car and > owning a transferred software are similar fits in the category of > ignorance (being uneducated, unaware or uninformed on something), > whether we think in terms of relevant US law or just the fundamental > nature of the deal. Please don't think I imply something beyond what > ignorance means when I use this word.
What I was disagreeing with was not copyright law in general, or software licensing in general. I simply stated that I think that something where the contract in question is merely implied rather than explicit, as in a shrinkwrap license, being able to legally forbid you from transferring the product to someone else under any conditions at all is in my view unreasonable and over the top. It wouldn't greatly surprise me if this was in fact the law, given the number of truly outrageous examples of bad law that are out there. If you've actually signed an explicit contract with those terms (which Franz requires you to do, as I've been informed by email), that's something else entirely. Depending on the product and the situation, I might find that reasonable and agree to it, or I might find it unreasonably draconian and paranoid and go do business elsewhere.
* "Larry Elmore" <ljelm...@montana.campuscw.net> | I simply stated that I think that something where the contract in | question is merely implied rather than explicit, as in a shrinkwrap | license, being able to legally forbid you from transferring the product | to someone else under any conditions at all is in my view unreasonable | and over the top.
it's the willingness to break any licenses with which one does not agree that defines the criminal mind. moreover, such criminal attitudes is what makes it necessary in the first place to tighten up the licenses. in the absence of the criminal mind, licenses are much shorter and much simpler. if you conclude from this that Franz Inc in particular or the software industry in general has had a lot of contact with criminal minds, consider the attitude towards the "best" criminal mind around: Bill Gates. large fractions of the population consider him a hero, yet he has zero respect for law, contract, or license, and breaks anything he thinks he can get away with. this has led concerned people everywhere to become even more cautious about giving other criminal minds any leeway.
the real target for your anger is Microsoft's business practices. don't take it out on any single company that tries to live in a world where Microsoft would steal everything they did if they had the skills to know how good it is. so if you retarget your complaints, maybe they'll have merit.
> * "Larry Elmore" <ljelm...@montana.campuscw.net> >| I simply stated that I think that something where the contract in >| question is merely implied rather than explicit, as in a shrinkwrap >| license, being able to legally forbid you from transferring the product >| to someone else under any conditions at all is in my view unreasonable >| and over the top.
> it's the willingness to break any licenses with which one does not agree > that defines the criminal mind. moreover, such criminal attitudes is > what makes it necessary in the first place to tighten up the licenses. > in the absence of the criminal mind, licenses are much shorter and much > simpler. if you conclude from this that Franz Inc in particular or the > software industry in general has had a lot of contact with criminal > minds, consider the attitude towards the "best" criminal mind around: > Bill Gates. large fractions of the population consider him a hero, yet > he has zero respect for law, contract, or license, and breaks anything he > thinks he can get away with. this has led concerned people everywhere to > become even more cautious about giving other criminal minds any leeway.
> the real target for your anger is Microsoft's business practices. don't > take it out on any single company that tries to live in a world where > Microsoft would steal everything they did if they had the skills to know > how good it is. so if you retarget your complaints, maybe they'll have > merit.
to recapitulate this thread: larry asked whether somebody had a used copy of ACL to sell because he felt that franz'es price was too stiff for his purposes. as far as i recollect he gave no indication that he was aware of acl licenses not being transferrable (is that true in general? wouldn't it have been enough to inform him of that fact (if that's the case) rather than accusing him of criminal intentions without any evidence of criminal intent?
and please: continue this discussion on alt.copyright.whatever
--
Hartmann Schaffer
It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
Larry Elmore wrote: > Like I said, I have little experience with higher-end development > systems. I'm not a lawyer, either. I'm only referring to my own > (limited) personal experience.
You shouldn't assume that most developers don't have a satisfactory understanding or at least suspicions in this matter irrespective of experiences. Speaking of statistics, in the past years there was only one person looking to obtain a copy of ACL this way, and even he reacted reasonably after being informed.
> The parts about checking credit history and security checks were > _jokes_ that I thought were obvious and unambiguous,
It's very difficult to tell how edgy sentences come out in writing, in the absence of body language. Some researchers say that 70-80% of communication is through body language (when interpreting basic intentions, rather than discussing technical details, I guess). Flame wars are partly caused by this lack of bandwidth. But reading your other jokes (e.g., sterilized nickels), I think they don't come through either way. Telling that they were meant to be jokes are not excuses for the motives behind them.
> The concept of shrink-wrap licenses appears to > rest on somewhat shaky legal ground,
c.l.l. is really not an appropriate place to try to change this.
> Do you express trust in laws that you feel are poorly written,
Contract laws, while they may have their flaws, represent a pretty solid standard, trustable enough to be assumed that it is a given for purposes of forming a business strategy and license contracts. I would choose it any time over some layman's misconceptions on what laws should be like.
> I never said that part seemed extreme to me _except_ in regards to a > shrink-wrap license which you often don't see until you've already > bought the product.
Here you unnecessarily paint people who buy shrink-wrapped software victims. There are things they can do about it, and they are at best losers if they put up with it while they are deeply irritated about it. I don't know of an authority (except maybe Microsoft) who can extort money from you. Your postings don't reflect much research in this area though, even though your insistence would have come across more credible if you'd put in the legwork.
> Do you > actually know all the terms of all the shrink-wrap licenses on every > piece of software _you_ own?
I don't own software except what I wrote - I hold licenses. But to the supposed point: for example, when I bought LapLink or Alpha Centaury, I checked whether one license allows me to install it on one, two or more computers - an obvious thing to check the same way it is obvious to be interested in a lot more details of a developer license. I didn't check for license transferability, as I had no plans to sell it.
> Until this discussion came up, I never thought > of any development system being non-transferable except in the case > of legitimate trade secrets, such as getting all the source code, in > which case there would certainly have been explicit contracts signed > and the seller would be knowingly breaking the law, which I usually > object to vehemently.
I don't know why you stop with source code, maybe you just haven't spent significant time thinking about it. You gain insights, disassemble functions, develop and demonstrate your applications, which you would probably not erase from your hard drive. It's a little like wanting to transfer TurboTax 2000 in March after you prepared your own tax return.
> how in the world could my transferring the license to someone else > possibly hurt Franz, Inc. in any way whatsoever as long as I > completely removed it from my system?
Your lack of empathy and imagination is disturbing. If a customer buys from the secondary market, then he does not pay the vendor. This is yet another example of your misconceptions on contract law, the nature of immaterial goods and economics at work. Trust the law, buddy, and if you will have grown up to it, and identified real shortcomings, influence lawmaking on appropriate forums and don't scare away your potential business partners.
> (I can't object to bad laws being broken [...] > [for example,] Nazi Germany's Racial Purity Laws
In case you didn't consciously think about it, this is very offensive to both your readers and people using law in any way that you feel it's not obvious. Did you raise it as something that invalidates the usefulness of laws? (It's a question to answer to yourself only, don't bother following up.)
* * *
Reading your other postings, it seems that they are attacking Erik's sometimes markedly explicit language in the name of civility. They may not have had any impact other than eroding the credibility of a potentially valid concern, but rest assured, you went so far that the difference in quantity and abusiveness amounts to a qualitative leap. I've never in my life heard or seen a language that you use, except maybe the movie "Pulp Fiction", which I had stopped watching after a miserable 15 minutes. I think there is a mounting evidence for Erik to sue you and get you off of your ISP (it truly works) if he cares to. Larry, please clarify to yourself what you have achieved here in terms of changing others, learning and exposing parts of your personality to everybody in the World. If you can't quit posting abuses, rate your postings 'R' in the subject line.
