Allegro CL 5.0 Win32

54 views
Skip to first unread message

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/15/00
to
I'd like to purchase this. If anyone has a licensed copy they're looking to
sell, please let me know.

- Zach

Eugene Zaikonnikov

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to
In article
<AA33EEDB1A1BA46D.0D72DACC...@lp.airnews.net>,

"Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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.

--
Eugene.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to
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
news:88e1bh$2ir$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to
In article <4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>,

"Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to

"Hartmann Schaffer" <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote in message
news:38ab1...@flint.sentex.net...

> In article
<4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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. :)

- Zach

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to
* "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to

Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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.

Robert

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/16/00
to

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?

Robert

tej...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

> 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.

Kenneth P. Turvey

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:11:18 -0500, Robert Monfera <mon...@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

Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

"Robert Monfera" <mon...@fisec.com> wrote in message
news:38AB66D6...@fisec.com...

>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>
> > What laws, contracts and/or licenses?
>
> 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'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

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:31597285...@naggum.no...

> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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.

- Zach

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

"Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com> wrote in message
news:17469987431B6F31.46F41E77...@lp.airnews.net...
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?

- Zach

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:31597285...@naggum.no...
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
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 <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
88h7un$b82$1...@news.campuscwix.net...


-----= 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! =-----

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
Be fair.
Eric is all right (as long as he is taking his medicine).

Janos Blazi

Zachary Turner <ztu...@bindview.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
F01E3D2E0D28CE73.4B157D3D...@lp.airnews.net...

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

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.

Robert

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

"Robert Monfera" <mon...@fisec.com> wrote in message
news:38AC49C2...@fisec.com...
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.

- Zach

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

"Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:

[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.

Robert

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to

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.

Robert

Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
"Robert Monfera" <mon...@fisec.com> wrote in message
news:38AC7048...@fisec.com...

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

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
* "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@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.

#:Erik

Robert Munyer

unread,
Feb 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/17/00
to
In article <slrn8an89u...@pug1.sprocketshop.com>,

Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-...@SprocketShop.com> wrote:

> 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.

If you don't like the idea of being legally bound by contract terms
that you have never even seen, you should read about UCITA at:

http://www.badsoftware.com/

and

http://www.infoworld.com/opinions/morethegripeline.html

UCITA is a proposed law that will repeal many of the basic protections
of contract and consumer law that have been in place for 100 years.

That's not just my opinion; dozens of state Attorneys General, and
the Federal Trade Commission, have said essentially the same thing.

-- Robert Munyer <mun...@mcs.com>

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,
Feb 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/18/00
to
In article <31598191...@naggum.no>,

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

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/19/00
to

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.

Take care,

Robert

Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:31598898...@naggum.no...
> * h...@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer)

> | 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?
>
> this is an interesting philosophical issue about what we have to accept
> and what could have been different. some believe that we are faced with
> any number of options at all times and are responsible for every choice
> we make. some believe that such responsibility is localized and thus
> that it is a good reason _not_ to ask the principal question of every
> participant in a process, which is commonly called "blame-shifting".
>
> the answer to such "wouldn't it have been" is "maybe. so what?".
>
> speaking rhetorically, only: wouldn't it have been enough for him to
> state his explicit desires

He did.

> and his lack of knowledge of the licensing terms

That was implied as a strong possibility by the way the question was
phrased. If one has never heard of any personal software licenses being
non-transferable, it's rather unreasonable to expect them to investigate a
possibility that has never occurred to them. The equivalent Inprise
(Borland) Delphi system, or Microsoft, or Symantec systems, don't have such
a restriction, so why would one even suspect Franz ACL is different?

> instead of making a bunch of weird assumptions that would lead
> others to think he was out to cheat others? any number of questions can
> be asked in the same vein, with exactly the same result: _nothing_.

I'm interested in knowing what "weird assumptions" you assume he made. I can
only think of one assumption, and that was in assuming the ACL license was
transferable just like a number of similar products for different languages
by different companies. That's not even a bad assumption, especially if one
has never previously encountered a non-transferable license for such a
system.

As far as leading others to think he was out to cheat Franz, you're the only
one I know of that leapt to that conclusion. Others assumed he must not be
aware of the non-transferable nature of their licenses, or else saw nothing
wrong with the question because they didn't know about the nature of the
license either. Psychologically speaking, it _is_ interesting that you
_immediately_ assumed that he was knowingly attempting to cheat Franz, Inc.
. . .

Larry

Lars Lundback

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:

>
> well, he (actually, it was not larry) was looking for a copy (presumably
> because he wanted to use it). some people apparently felt that the acl
> license would make handing over a used copy a crimainal offense. so
> what's your problem?
>

Your last remark sounds unkind, and implies that I should go away. I will, but I
remain curious. Now you talk about "used copy". I cannot see the meaning of
"copy" at all, in this context. Your summary of this thread was unsatisfactory
to me, and it still is. Can we leave it at that?

Lars Lundback

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Dear Larry,

I don't want to antagonize you, but I, for one, find it hard to understand
("that a lot of people ...") . However, the original poster is evidently one of
them.

I am somewhat puzzled about "_buying_ a license is misleading if you can't sell
it". If you read my posting again, you will see that I said "renting". If
pressed, I would use 'pay for', from "Cambridge's Dictionaries Online", since to
you 'buying' seems to automatically imply transfer of ownership (with no strings
attached)? But this is quibbling.

What is not, is this notion that anything bought (paid for) is automatically
resellable. It is not acceptable to me.

>
> Erik's response was arrogant ...

Had a gentle rebuff served his purpose, which, I think, was to condemn this
phenomenon generally? I too got a sour feeling when reading the request.

Jonathan Guthrie

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to

WHAT phenomenon? The resale of copyrighted material?

Anything bought IS automatically resellable unless you have a valid
contract that says that it isn't. This is as true of copyrighted
materials as it is of anything else. People buy "used" books, audio,
and video recordings all the time and that is not considered something
that deserves a lot of ire. Why should software be any different?

Now, there's a lot of meaning tied up in the word "valid", and the laws
are, no doubt, different in your part of the world, but that's a general
legal principle in the United States and is derived from English Common
Law. If you own something, it's YOURS and, unless you choose to give up
that right, you can do with it what you wish.

Of course, the software vendors would have you think that you purchased
a "license" rather than software. I've read a variety of legal opinions
about how that view matches with the legal principles in the United States
and the general consensus is that it's nonsense. That's why the UCITA is
so important. Again, I can't say what the laws are like in your part of
the world, but you seem to be assuming that the way things are where you
are is the way things are generally, and such is not the case.


Pierre R. Mai

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Jonathan Guthrie <jgut...@brokersys.com> writes:

> WHAT phenomenon? The resale of copyrighted material?
>
> Anything bought IS automatically resellable unless you have a valid
> contract that says that it isn't. This is as true of copyrighted

In the case currently under consideration there _is_ a valid, signed
(licence) contract between the parties concerned, which excludes
transfer of licence. The same is the case in any number of cases
involving software, chemical or mechanical processes, and other
intellectual properties.

> materials as it is of anything else. People buy "used" books, audio,
> and video recordings all the time and that is not considered something
> that deserves a lot of ire. Why should software be any different?

At least outside of the US, even in the "simple" case of books, there
are usually restrictions on your right to resell:

"Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to
the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be
lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the
publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than
that in which it is published and without a similar condition
including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

> Now, there's a lot of meaning tied up in the word "valid", and the laws
> are, no doubt, different in your part of the world, but that's a general
> legal principle in the United States and is derived from English Common
> Law. If you own something, it's YOURS and, unless you choose to give up
> that right, you can do with it what you wish.

And to gain ownership or right of use, you often have to agree to
accept to give up some of those rights. That's contract law.

> Of course, the software vendors would have you think that you purchased
> a "license" rather than software. I've read a variety of legal opinions
> about how that view matches with the legal principles in the United States
> and the general consensus is that it's nonsense. That's why the UCITA is
> so important. Again, I can't say what the laws are like in your part of
> the world, but you seem to be assuming that the way things are where you
> are is the way things are generally, and such is not the case.

AFAIK only the validity of so called "shrink-wrap licences" are under
heavy legal dispute (and rightly so, IMHO). The general validity of
normal, written and signed, licence contracts has to my knowledge not
been challenged (again rightly so, IMHO). And these contracts are the
rule in certain parts of the software market.

Regs, Pierre.

--
Pierre Mai <pm...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]

Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
"Lars Lundback" <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote in message
news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...

> Dear Larry,
>
> I don't want to antagonize you, but I, for one, find it hard to understand
> ("that a lot of people ...") . However, the original poster is evidently
one of
> them.

I don't know why. The vast majority of computer software is in fact bought
and sold just like books, music and videos. BTW, I'm not at all antagonized
and I've learned something I didn't know before. A little puzzled,
perhaps...

> I am somewhat puzzled about "_buying_ a license is misleading if you can't
sell
> it". If you read my posting again, you will see that I said "renting". If
> pressed, I would use 'pay for', from "Cambridge's Dictionaries Online",
since to
> you 'buying' seems to automatically imply transfer of ownership (with no
strings
> attached)? But this is quibbling.

I know you said renting. I was trying to make clear the distinction in most
people's minds, and call attention to the fact that most computer software
is _not_ rented, but is bought and sold. I'm not renting Visual C++ or NT
4.0 Wkst. from Microsoft, I _bought_ them and may keep them, use them, throw
them away, or _sell_ them to whomsoever I wish, subject of course to
copyright restrictions just like books, music or videos. This, of course,
causes no damage whatsoever to Microsoft and I would be interested in
knowing why someone might think it would. In fact, I wasn't aware that any
personal software was covered by non-transferable licenses until this thread
got started.

> What is not, is this notion that anything bought (paid for) is
automatically
> resellable. It is not acceptable to me.

If it's clear that you are renting, leasing, or subscribing to a service,
then of course it's obvious that it's not resellable. IF you have _bought_
something, then it is yours to do with as you please except where restricted
by copyright law or contract. My problem was with the idea that a
"shrink-wrap" license could go so far as to make the product
non-transferable. That seems to me an extreme extension of copyright law and
it's validity as a binding contract seems questionable. Looking into this
matter, it's clear that I'm not alone in this -- the whole question (in
America, at least) is rather unsettled. The question in this thread,
however, is moot because in ACL's case, one must actually sign contracts and
it's explicit that the software is not resellable. That's fine and that's
perfectly within Franz's rights.

To expect someone who hasn't done business with Franz to know that their
software is non-transferable seems a little unreasonable to me. As to why
Zachary didn't contact Franz first, it appears obvious to me that he knew
their prices were very high and he would buy from them directly only if
there wasn't a cheaper alternative. I attempted to contact Franz, but never
heard from them, and then from other sources discovered that their prices
were as high as I had feared, and since I can't afford that right now, there
didn't seem to be any point in trying to contact them again. So I never
found out about their somewhat draconian licensing restrictions, either.

> > Erik's response was arrogant ...
>
> Had a gentle rebuff served his purpose, which, I think, was to condemn
this
> phenomenon generally?

If Erik had withheld his ire long enough to determine whether Zachary knew
that ACL licenses were non-transferable or not, and thus whether his
intentions were honorable or not, that would've been wonderful. If it turned
out that Zachary _knew_ the details about ACL's licensing and was actually
trying to cheat Franz, Erik's response would _then_ have been entirely
appropriate and I would've joined him! If it was actually ignorance in
action, then a polite but firm introduction to the reality of the situation
would be in order. My only problem with Erik is that he appears to have a
hair-trigger. He goes to right to the limit right off the bat, sometimes
without waiting to find out if his own assumptions are correct. In wartime,
a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy may be appropriate and
necessary to ensure one's own survival, but in a newsgroup it's out of line.
If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail of
dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.

> I too got a sour feeling when reading the request.

There's a couple of stores here where I live that sell used computer
software. It's perfectly legal and I've purchased software there that I
would not otherwise have because the "new" price is too high for my budget.
As long as illegal copies are not made and kept or sold, there's nothing
wrong with it. Do you think that copyright law should be rewritten so that
this practice can be banned?

Do you also get a sour feeling when walking by a used book store? After all,
one might argue that the publisher and author are being "cheated" there
also.

Larry

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to

Larry Elmore wrote:

> I'm not renting Visual C++ or NT 4.0 Wkst. from Microsoft, I _bought_
> them

I think you didn't buy them, you have licensed them.

Another difference is that development tools are probably not profit
centers for Microsoft, and just because they do something in a certain
way does not mean it's right.

Robert

Jonathan Guthrie

unread,
Feb 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/20/00
to
Pierre R. Mai <pm...@acm.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Guthrie <jgut...@brokersys.com> writes:

>> WHAT phenomenon? The resale of copyrighted material?

>> Anything bought IS automatically resellable unless you have a valid
>> contract that says that it isn't. This is as true of copyrighted

> In the case currently under consideration there _is_ a valid, signed
> (licence) contract between the parties concerned, which excludes
> transfer of licence. The same is the case in any number of cases
> involving software, chemical or mechanical processes, and other
> intellectual properties.

I understand that, for the case in question, there is a contract (the
validity of which has not been conclusively demonstrated to me, but I
will stipulate that it is valid) that restricts resale of the item.
My point is that, for the person who got dumped on originally, that sort
of restriction is far less likely than the situation he was expecting.
It is, therefore, unreasonable to think that he's trying to break the
law simply because the situation he is expecting, and which his past
experiences have led him to believe he has every right to expect, isn't
the way that it is.

>> materials as it is of anything else. People buy "used" books, audio,
>> and video recordings all the time and that is not considered something
>> that deserves a lot of ire. Why should software be any different?

> At least outside of the US, even in the "simple" case of books, there
> are usually restrictions on your right to resell:

> "Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to
> the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be
> lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the
> publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than
> that in which it is published and without a similar condition
> including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

I don't think that's the example you had in mind. All that says is the
purchaser can't sell it unless it's in the same cover and is in the same
binding.

>> Now, there's a lot of meaning tied up in the word "valid", and the laws
>> are, no doubt, different in your part of the world, but that's a general
>> legal principle in the United States and is derived from English Common
>> Law. If you own something, it's YOURS and, unless you choose to give up
>> that right, you can do with it what you wish.

> And to gain ownership or right of use, you often have to agree to
> accept to give up some of those rights. That's contract law.

Again, we are agreed that you can certainly give up the right to freely
sell an item. I believe I said as much in the third sentence of mine
that you quoted above. An example of this is a "buy-sell agreement"
that would be executed when stock in a privately-held companies is sold.

>> Of course, the software vendors would have you think that you purchased
>> a "license" rather than software. I've read a variety of legal opinions
>> about how that view matches with the legal principles in the United States
>> and the general consensus is that it's nonsense. That's why the UCITA is
>> so important. Again, I can't say what the laws are like in your part of
>> the world, but you seem to be assuming that the way things are where you
>> are is the way things are generally, and such is not the case.

> AFAIK only the validity of so called "shrink-wrap licences" are under
> heavy legal dispute (and rightly so, IMHO). The general validity of
> normal, written and signed, licence contracts has to my knowledge not
> been challenged (again rightly so, IMHO). And these contracts are the
> rule in certain parts of the software market.

My understanding (and IANAL) is your paragraph is correct as it stands.
In some circumstances it is common practice to exercise restrictive
contracts before software is delivered, and those contracts are generally
considered valid.

On the other hand, it could be asserted that when you pay money for
software, you aren't actually buying anything. It could be claimed that
you're exchanging money for the use of the software and that no transfer
of ownership happens. It is that claim I was attempting to address as
my understanding is that if you walk into a store and give money to a
cashier for a cardboard box full of stuff, you get ownership of that box
and its contents whether those contents are software or breakfast
cereal. Of course you do not purchase the right to copy (commonly
called a "copyright") that software (or, for that matter, the cereal)
but you own one copy that, absent other agreements to the contrary,
you can use pretty much as you wish including reselling.

And now I've said my peace, so I'll go away.


Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
"Robert Monfera" <mon...@fisec.com> wrote in message
news:38B07857...@fisec.com...

>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>
> > I'm not renting Visual C++ or NT 4.0 Wkst. from Microsoft, I _bought_
> > them
>
> I think you didn't buy them, you have licensed them.

Well then, I bought a license. :)
If they get stolen from me in a burglary, it's my property that's been
stolen and I'm the one that suffers and I'm the one the insurance company
will pay for them. Microsoft suffers not at all unless the thieves start
making illegal copies and distributing them. So I own them, but I don't have
unlimited rights regarding their use. Just like a book.

> Another difference is that development tools are probably not profit
> centers for Microsoft, and just because they do something in a certain
> way does not mean it's right.

True, but it's not just Microsoft, and it's only with shrink-wrap licenses.
ACL is apparently covered by explicit signed contracts, so is in a whole
different league altogether.

Larry

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,
Feb 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/21/00
to
In article <38B00F33...@eralslk.ericsson.se>,

Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> writes:
> Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>
>>
>> well, he (actually, it was not larry) was looking for a copy (presumably
>> because he wanted to use it). some people apparently felt that the acl
>> license would make handing over a used copy a crimainal offense. so
>> what's your problem?
>>
>
> Your last remark sounds unkind, and implies that I should go away. I will, but I

you sound surprised; do you mind explaining why?

> remain curious. Now you talk about "used copy". I cannot see the meaning of
> "copy" at all, in this context. Your summary of this thread was unsatisfactory
> to me, and it still is. Can we leave it at that?

sinmce you seem to jump into discussions without without bothering to
check what went on before, gladly

William Deakin

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Larry wrote:

> If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail of dead
> bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.

But only if you lived in a country where the police are routinely armed.
Elsewhere they would just end up with a lot of bruised, but very much alive,
bodies ;)

:) will


Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to

Larry Elmore <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
88ptbf$2em$1...@news.campuscwix.net...

> "Lars Lundback" <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail of
> dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.

*All* of them unnecessarily. But real criminals would feel fine in that
country.
Janos Blazi

Lars Lundback

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Janos Blazi wrote:
>
> Larry Elmore <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 88ptbf$2em$1...@news.campuscwix.net...
> > "Lars Lundback" <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> > news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> > If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail of
> > dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.
>
> *All* of them unnecessarily. But real criminals would feel fine in that
> country.

Please check whom you quote before posting your replies. That comment has
nothing to do with me.

Lars Lundback

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
Sorry, I was quoting Larry Elmore, something went wrong.
So the author was wrong but the message is still true.

J.B.


Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
38B2BD25...@eralslk.ericsson.se...


> Janos Blazi wrote:
> >
> > Larry Elmore <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > 88ptbf$2em$1...@news.campuscwix.net...

> > > "Lars Lundback" <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> > > news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...

> > > If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail
of
> > > dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them
unnecessarily.
> >

> > *All* of them unnecessarily. But real criminals would feel fine in that
> > country.
>
> Please check whom you quote before posting your replies. That comment has
> nothing to do with me.
>
> Lars Lundback

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
* "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net>
| If Erik had ...
| If Erik was ...

then pigs would fly and Larry Elmore would have figured out that making
yet more projections and conjectures based on his own experiences would
not communicate anything but his own ability to deal with traumatic input.

just coincidentally, if I were a police officer, my take on this is that
Larry would accuse me of police brutality if I looked at him, and would
sue the entire police department if I did my job well and had to give him
a citation for something he actually did. there are a lot of people who
have personal issues with the concept "authority" and work very hard to
make sure they are never mistaken for one while fighting against all that
looks like authorities, even if it is _really_ stupid to do so. I won't
conjecture on anyone's upbringing, even though it's very tempting, now.

#:Erik

Larry Elmore

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:31602368...@naggum.no...

> * "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net>
> | If Erik had ...
> | If Erik was ...
>
> then pigs would fly and Larry Elmore would have figured out that making
> yet more projections and conjectures based on his own experiences would
> not communicate anything but his own ability to deal with traumatic
input.
>
> just coincidentally, if I were a police officer, my take on this is that
> Larry would accuse me of police brutality if I looked at him, and would
> sue the entire police department if I did my job well and had to give
him
> a citation for something he actually did.

I can't see any reason why I would do something silly like that. Nor did I
do so when the police actually did give me a citation. I _was_ angry with
myself for being stupid, but I was nothing but respectful to the police
officer and I have no idea why you think I wouldn't be.

> there are a lot of people who
> have personal issues with the concept "authority" and work very hard to
> make sure they are never mistaken for one while fighting against all
that
> looks like authorities, even if it is _really_ stupid to do so.

Yes, there are people like that and I'm glad I'm not one of them. My father
was career Navy and I served in the Air Force, so I certainly understand and
respect authority. I also don't follow it blindly. Even in the military, one
is not obliged to carry out illegal orders or blatantly stupid orders that
will get you or others in some sort of trouble -- though you had better be
damned sure of your position because if you're wrong, you will most
certainly pay for your mistake. Sometimes authority is wrong.

Tell me, Erik, if you had lived in the northern United States in the 1850's,
would you have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and turned in a runaway
Southern slave and those who helped him? It _was_ the law of the land,
remember. Or would you have helped the slave to freedom? Or a Jew in
Nazi-controlled Europe? What would you have done? Sometimes the authorities
and the law are just simply _wrong_ and are so evil that they must be defied
to preserve one's own integrity regardless of the cost to oneself. Those
kinds of things are rare in democracies today, but they can happen. I
_don't_ advocate the breaking of any laws unless those laws are so
egregiously wrong that there is no way to follow them and remain morally
clean.

> I won't
> conjecture on anyone's upbringing, even though it's very tempting, now.

I'm pleased. It appears you're learning. Thank you.

Larry

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
* "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net>

| Tell me, Erik, if you had lived in the northern United States in the
| 1850's, would you have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and turned in a
| runaway Southern slave and those who helped him? ...
;

| I'm pleased. It appears you're learning. Thank you.

I'm always learning -- consider the alternative: repeating mistakes like
asking hypothetical-rhetorical questions and posting hypothetical insults.

#:Erik, just sighing

David Thornley

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
In article <38b18...@flint.sentex.net>,

Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
>In article <38B00F33...@eralslk.ericsson.se>,
> Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> writes:
>> Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>>
A few questions on this thread:

First, is the Personal Edition sold with a non-transferrability clause?
It would appear that the more expensive Franz systems are sold with
such. However, nobody in this entire idiotic thread has said plainly
whether the Personal Edition is covered with such a clause.

Second, if it were, where would an inquiring person find this out?
Is it clear on Franz' web site?

For my next question, I will point out that I have purchased some
development systems in the past. I have never actually noticed
non-transferrability clauses, and have in some products noticed
clauses that define what must be done to legally transfer ownership,
which implies that it is permissible. I would assume that any
piece of softwafe is transferrable, under the provisions of copyright
law, unless otherwise stated. (FWIW, I have also bought a large number
of used books in my life.)

Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
intelligent person assume criminal intent? It seems to me that
a reasonable answer would be "No, the licenses are not transferrable,
and therefore you cannot get a used copy legally." This isn't even
a matter of ignorance of the law, but rather ignorance of a certain
company's policy as expressed in what contracts it agrees to.

Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which nobody
has said is the case.

At home, I have a copy of "The Conduct of War", by Colmar von der Goltz,
translated by some British officer whose name I forget. It was printed
in 1899. It is likely, but not certain, to be public domain according
to applicable copyright laws. Suppose I were to state that I wanted
to put a copy of this book on my web site. Would people claim that
this was an attempt to commit a criminal act, or would they assume
that I might just be concerned about copyright law, and possibly
were interested in doing the copying only if it were legal?

I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US. It is
considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
accusations lightly.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to

David Thornley wrote:

> A few questions on this thread:
>
> First, is the Personal Edition sold with a non-transferrability
> clause?

Er.. why don't you ask Franz, if you are interested? (I'm not facetious
- I don't know the answer, but I would not have the idea of asking
anybody other than _them_ if I was interested.)

It's possible for a license to limit the public or private disclosure of
licensing terms. Personally, I would not disclose terms unless I made
sure it's OK, which is a bit of effort, which you could invest
yourselves just by asking Franz. Probably it's not an extreme view, as
there hasn't been much discussion on terms before on c.l.l.

[...]


> Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which
> nobody has said is the case.

Just to get facts straight, at least one person has said so in this
thread.

[...]


> I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
> public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.

I'm sure Larry would have appreciated this argument as he would not have
had to resort to other means of convincement :-)

Robert

Zachary Turner

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
> 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

Actually I am the one that originally asked for a used copy of ACL. Not
that it matters, but I thought I'd make the correction anyway.

- Zach

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
* David Thornley

| Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
| intelligent person assume criminal intent?

the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay Franz Inc's
prices and the fact that he had already established that he was looking
for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus, he's trying to
deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite it. you've been had.

| Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which nobody
| has said is the case.

if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to stop denying replies to
your questions. otherwise, it becomes necessary to believe that you have
an agenda whose personal value to you far exceeds the truth.

| I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
| public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.

in other words, what you're doing now is grounds for a lawsuit in the U.S.
now quote the _accusations_ you see, or apologize for even hinting at it!

| It is considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
| people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
| accusations lightly.

so why do you do it so lightly? are _you_ above the law? one has to
wonder with all the "what me? I'm not one of _them!_"-style rhetorics
you serve up, where everything that applies to others could not in your
most lively imagination apply to yourself. in case you wonder, such lack
of empathy and principle in judgment is one of the root causes of
interminable conflicts, and you're well on your wan to keep this going
for nearly four years, just like the other loser does. stop now. reel
yourself in and start _thinking_.

#:Erik

Ole Myren Rohne

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) writes:

> I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a

> public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US. It is


> considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
> people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
> accusations lightly.

The message that David might be alluding to (see below), seems to be
posted from Norway. In that country, malicious slander is in fact a
_criminal_ offense, to be punished with up to 3 years in jail
(Straffeloven, paragraphs 246-254).

The above is of course not to imply that Erik Naggum _did_ break the
law, as this question could only be settled in court. And don't you
all rush off to phone the Oslo Police, as only the offended person is
allowed to file a complaint.

Ole Myren Røhne

---

Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:

> NNTP-Posting-Host: gate.dn.nhst.no
> X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 950743299 121 195.0.192.66 (16 Feb 2000 23:21:39 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: newsm...@eunet.no
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2000 23:21:39 GMT

> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@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?

Ole Myren Rohne

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:
> * David Thornley
> | Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
> | intelligent person assume criminal intent?
>
> the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay Franz Inc's
> prices and the fact that he had already established that he was looking
> for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus, he's trying to
> deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite it. you've been had.

At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
instead of quoting from it:

In <AA33EEDB1A1BA46D.0D72DACC...@lp.airnews.net>,
Zachary Turner <ztu...@bindview.com> writes:
> I'd like to purchase this. If anyone has a licensed copy they're looking to
> sell, please let me know.

Does the words _purchase_ and _licensed_ _copy_ make it sound like
Zachary is asking someone to tar up their ACL distribution and post
it? Certainly not, and it's nothing there that implies that he knew
the license in question is non-transferable. For shure, _Erik_ _Naggum_
is rewriting what Zachary said in order to make it fit with his own
presumptions.

Ole Myren Røhne

Janos Blazi

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble for
them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.

Janos Blazi


Ole Myren Rohne <ole....@cern.ch> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
ebwzosr...@pcedu1.cern.ch...

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

Ole Myren Rohne wrote:

EN: the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay
EN: Franz Inc's prices and the fact that he had already established EN:


that he was looking for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc.

> At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message


> instead of quoting from it:

[quote of the original message elided]

Erik didn't follow up with the original message, but with this later
one, and the way he paraphrased it seems correct to me:

"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."

I don't point it out to say that the accusation from Erik was warranted
- just to ask you to get the facts straight by doing a not even very
difficult research when the only reason you posted for is to educate
someone else on getting facts straight.

Most arguments against Erik's behavior have been overloaded with
material inaccuracies and personal attacks, hindering potentially valid
concerns.

Robert

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

Erik Naggum wrote:

DT: I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
DT: public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.

> in other words, what you're doing now is grounds for a lawsuit in the


> U.S. now quote the _accusations_ you see, or apologize for even hinting
> at it!

If these quotes below aren't accusations of criminal intent, then I
don't see how David's "I will point out" above could be grounds for a
lawsuit.

"but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, 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 would easily have found that out if you didn't first conclude that
you had to cheat and steal."

Robert

Hartmann Schaffer

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
In article <38B551B6...@fisec.com>,
Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.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."
>
> I don't point it out to say that the accusation from Erik was warranted

only if the original poster was aware that the license was not
transferrable. if he was assuming that it was transferrable, all he was
doing asking whether somebody had it, didn't want to use it any more,
and was willing to sell his copy at a loss. is there any post that i
misse that indicates that he was aware of the nontransferrability of the
license?

> - just to ask you to get the facts straight by doing a not even very
> difficult research when the only reason you posted for is to educate
> someone else on getting facts straight.

Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

Hartmann Schaffer wrote:

[point I made elided]
RM: I don't point it out to say that the accusation from Erik was
RM: warranted


>
> only if the original poster was aware that the license was not

> transferrable [...]

If you wanted to relate to my posting, please re-read what I wrote,
maybe you have misinterpreted something?

Please use an actual, working e-mail address so that I don't have to
post to c.l.l. (I wanted to follow up privately and it bounced).

Robert

Ole Myren Rohne

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> writes:

> Ole Myren Rohne wrote:
> > At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
> > instead of quoting from it:
> Erik didn't follow up with the original message, but with this later
> one, and the way he paraphrased it seems correct to me:
[snip]

No. Erik Naggum says Zachary was "looking for a _copy_", my point
being that Zachary used the phrases "purchase" and "licensed copy",
all in his original message.

> - just to ask you to get the facts straight by doing a not even very
> difficult research when the only reason you posted for is to educate
> someone else on getting facts straight.

Well, yes and no...

Erik Naggum's paraphrase might apply to both messages, as well as to a
later followup by Zachary:

In <88hkbf$o...@library1.airnews.net>, <ztu...@bindview.com> writes:
ZT: Well, in the situation that the license is non-transferrable, then
ZT: obviously the only viable option would be for me to purchase the
ZT: software from Franz, Inc. However, let it be stated for the record
ZT: that I never intended on obtaining an illegal copy of the software,
ZT: which is why I plainly stated in the original post that I'm willing
ZT: to pay Franz's price for the software if absolutely necessary.

In <31603373...@naggum.no>, <er...@naggum.no> writes:
EN: * David Thornley
EN: | Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
EN: | intelligent person assume criminal intent?
EN: the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay Franz
EN: Inc's prices and the fact that he had already established that he
EN: was looking for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus,
EN: he's trying to deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite
EN: it. you've been had.

In any case, calling Erik Naggum's rewrite "paraphrase" is an
understatement. He is indeed twisting the thruth at the border of
malice. I don't see why referring to _all_ of Zachary's posts were
necessary to establish this.

Ole Myren Røhne

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
* Ole Myren Rohne <ole....@cern.ch>

| At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
| instead of quoting from it:

you're quoting the wrong article, dude, and I wasn't responding to the
original article in the first place. get it straight or shut up. try
<4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>
instead, with my response in <31597285...@naggum.no>.

if you need evidence that quoting doesn't really help in understanding
what's going on in a debate, consider your own reactions to what you have
read. you, too, make assumptions about what people mean that go far
beyond any actually quotable text. so, too, with everybody else. the
sooner you understand this, the less you will fall prey to assigning
malicous intent to people, which it _seems_ you don't want others (i.e.,
me) to do, but keep doing yourself, towards me. I don't particularly
respect such hypocricy, if that has been unclear up until now. oK?

#:Erik

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
* Ole Myren Rohne <ole....@cern.ch>
| In any case, calling Erik Naggum's rewrite "paraphrase" is an
| understatement. He is indeed twisting the thruth at the border of
| malice. I don't see why referring to _all_ of Zachary's posts were
| necessary to establish this.

since you're clearly engaging in the same practices you criticize, what's
your problem? did I merely fail to ask _you_ permission to do what you
consider OK when you do it yourself?

I sincerely wish people who want to criticize others wouldn't be so
interminably stupid as to do exactly the same thing themselves. it
doesn't invalidate any criticism per se, but it makes me wonder whether
the real issue they have is that _I_ do whatever, not whatever it was I
did, in which case I will summarily dismiss them as raving lunatics with
a personal axe to grind.

just don't do what you don't want others to do. how hard can the merit
of this principle be for people to grasp?

#:Erik

Erik Naggum

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
* "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>

| But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
| insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble for
| them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.

I'm somewhat disappointed that you have the mental wherewithal to know
that this would be the only defense for your incredibly malicous postings
against me for as long as you have been using this newsgroup. however, I
keep wondering what you gain from it, if .anything very few people have
such a fucked-up psyche that malice _alone_ is considered constructive to
their goals and personal needs, but you seem to have nothing else to
contribute. however, since you know you can't be punished for your
actions, it would still be nice to know what would satisfy the personal
needs that drives your malice. do you have the mental wherewithal to
explain that to us, too?

#:Erik

Lars Lundback

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Ole Myren Rohne wrote:
>
>
> In any case, calling Erik Naggum's rewrite "paraphrase" is an
> understatement. He is indeed twisting the thruth at the border of
> malice. I don't see why referring to _all_ of Zachary's posts were
> necessary to establish this.
>

Whatever the original intents were, both Zachary's and Erik's, it is a fact the
people interpret words differently. _That_ cannot be hard to admit.

Some of you seem to throw in words like 'copy' needlessly, like: "I bought a
copy of Times Magazine." Not always though; buying a copy of a pop record sounds
fishy, so you probably don't say that.

You may hold that 'copy' is just a filling-in word with no meaning, to be
ignored. But does one buy a 'copy' of MS Word from a PC Shop? No, you buy MS
Word, period. And: "I want to buy a copy of MS Word" - how does that sound? To
me, it means that you want a duplicate of someone's instance of MS Word.

Zachary was unfortunate when he said "copy" in connection with software,
especially when buying and selling it. He was probably not aware of it. But to
me, buying a copy means buying a (privately made) duplicate. Erik's questions to
Zachary were pointed, maybe even malicious, but were they unneccessary? I don't
think so.

Regards,

Lars Lundback

Ole Myren Rohne

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> writes:

[snip]

> Whatever the original intents were, both Zachary's and Erik's, it is
> a fact the people interpret words differently. _That_ cannot be hard
> to admit.

Not at all. However, _which_ words one chooses to interpret matters a
lot.

[snip]

> Zachary was unfortunate when he said "copy" in connection with
> software, especially when buying and selling it.

Zachary said _a_ _licensed_ _copy_ not just _copy_ both in his
original post as well as when quoting himself in the follow-up:
<4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>.
In the article I criticized <31603373...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum
had to omit "licensed" in order to make Zachary *sound* dishonest -
that was my point.

Ole Myren Røhne


Robert Monfera

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00