Searching \ for '[OT] Re: Turning back the clock' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/timers.htm?key=clock
Search entire site for: 'Re: Turning back the clock'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Re: Turning back the clock'
1997\09\08@192022 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
Andrew G Williams <spam_OUTAGW01TakeThisOuTspamAOL.COM> wrote:
> In what way is changing the settings of my own system clock unethical?
> I'm not altering a single byte of program code.

The following comments assume the abscence of a license agreement:

The mere act of setting the clock of your computer back is not illegal, and
probably everyone would agree that it is not unethical.

It is well-established legally (at least in the US) that the consumer has the
right to make any desired alterations to purchased products.  This includes
patching object code.  It has even been found that any interim copies which are
made solely as a necessary step in the alteration are covered as fair use.

I would argue that patching per se is not unethical.

However, I personally consider it to be unethical to either set back the clock
or to patch out the checking in order to circumvent the author's intended
restrictions on a trial version of a software package.

IMHO, if the software is worth using, it is worth buying.

Eric

1997\09\08@194051 by John Payson

picon face
> However, I personally consider it to be unethical to either set back the clock
> or to patch out the checking in order to circumvent the author's intended
> restrictions on a trial version of a software package.
>
> IMHO, if the software is worth using, it is worth buying.

Note, further, that the software activation was obtained by filling out
a license agreement form on Hitech's web site (or otherwise sending HiTech
an agreement); by requesting the serial number you have indicated that you
agree not to use the software for purposes other than those indicated.

1997\09\09@013832 by mikesmith_oz

flavicon
face
On  8 Sep 97 at 23:14, Eric Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Further, that crippling s/w more than having a 'use by' date on it,
is self-defeating for the author, in that it prevents the user from
trying out the code.  An instance - A piece of software called CAMCAD
is available for read/modify/write of differing formats of say pcb
artwork.  However, it is crippled to the extent where - you can't
edit - you can only read a limited number of formats - you can't
export as a different format.  As shareware this is useless - I don't
know if it will let me move a file from one format to another then
into another piece of s/w.  All I know about it is that its screen
redraw speed is slow with a complex board (with a fast video system)
- something that does not impel me to register it.  If I could try
its other features I might not be swayed by thee speed, and I might
possibly register it - but not as it is.  So they have lost a sale.
MikeS
<mikesmith_oz@nosp*m.relaymail.net>
(remove the you know what before replying)

1997\09\10@141615 by Andrew G Williams

picon face
Eric Smith wrote:

>Andrew G Williams <AGW01spamKILLspamAOL.COM> wrote:
>> In what way is changing the settings of my own system clock unethical?
>> I'm not altering a single byte of program code.
>
>
> ..... I personally consider it to be unethical to either set back the clock
>or to patch out the checking in order to circumvent the author's intended
>restrictions on a trial version of a software package.
>
>IMHO, if the software is worth using, it is worth buying.

I find it difficult to disagree with that.
It's just as well I prefer assembler! :-)

Andy.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...