Hello,
I would like to purchase lispworks 4.3 for windows, linux, and
macintosh. I will pay $100 for each operating system version that
you have ($300 if you have all 3).
I will take delivery over the internet by any transfer method as
zipped or uncompressed .iso cd images.
Of course, so that my copy will be legal, you have to agree to
remove your copy from your computers and throw it away, once
you sell it to me. :)
I will pay by snail mailed money order right away, I would put
some money down in advance if you have any concerns. I hope you
enjoy the extra christmas cash, I will enjoy lispworks. :-)
Contact me by email at mwalker AT techie.com
Thank you in advance,
MWalker
"mwalker" <·······@nospam.Techie.com> writes:
> Of course, so that my copy will be legal, you have to agree to
> remove your copy from your computers and throw it away, once
> you sell it to me. :)
[...]
> I hope you enjoy the extra christmas cash, I will enjoy
> lispworks. :-)
I dunno. I just gotta say I really don't like this.
On its face, it seems so innocent. And it's worded in a way that
seems to seek to be strictly legal. But it seems to me a hair's
breadth from saying "wink, wink". Maybe tempting people to make
copies for "christmas cash" and then not actually delete their own
copy is not the intent of MWalker, but it certainly comes close enough
to inviting that that it makes me queasy to see this go by... Yes, it
says just the opposite of what I'm thinking--that "of course" one
would delete their own copy. But the smiley at that point really
rubbed me the wrong way.
But it's also, at least on its face, a violation of the LW license
agreement, whether or not the would-be seller removes their copy.
Maybe somebody knows some legal precedent that supersedes this kind of
thing in a license contract, but this is what the text of the license
grant says, and it contradicts the reassuring wording quoted above:
| 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
| affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
| non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| LispWorks software product [...]
This is all just an expression of my personal opinion based solely on
what I see here. I don't know MWalker and don't have any actual way
of evaluating his/her actual intent, so I'm not making any claim one
way or another about that intent or his/her character. And for all I
know, MWalker was unaware of the license restriction. But it is there.
And it does seem clear.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> | 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
> | affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
> | non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | LispWorks software product [...]
One of the reason why free software is so likeable. No nasty licensing terms.
> This is all just an expression of my personal opinion based solely on
> what I see here. I don't know MWalker and don't have any actual way
> of evaluating his/her actual intent, so I'm not making any claim one
> way or another about that intent or his/her character. And for all I
> know, MWalker was unaware of the license restriction. But it is there.
> And it does seem clear.
The best advice we could give to MWalker is to go fetch clisp instead.
It runs on MS-Windows, Macintosh, MacOSX, Amiga, Linux, Unix, etc, and
nobody will commission the BPA to grab him and throw him in jail with
hundreds of thousand of fine...
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ . * * . * .* .
http://www.informatimago.com/ . * . .*
* . . /\ ). . *
Living free in Alaska or in Siberia, a . . / .\ . * .
grizzli's life expectancy is 35 years, .*. / * \ . .
but no more than 8 years in captivity. . /* o \ .
http://www.theadvocates.org/ * '''||''' .
SCO Spam-magnet: ··········@sco.com ******************
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> One of the reason why free software is so likeable. No nasty licensing terms.
Except when the license has nasty terms... Free does not mean that you
can do anything you want with it practically.
Rahul Jain <·····@rice.edu> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>
> > One of the reason why free software is so likeable. No nasty
> > licensing terms.
>
> Except when the license has nasty terms... Free does not mean that
> you can do anything you want with it practically.
There are lots of licensing terms out there. You pick the product
that does the job with the licensing terms that you can live with.
--
One Emacs to rule them all. One Emacs to find them,
One Emacs to take commands and to the keystrokes bind them,
All other programming languages wish they were Lisp.
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: 300 dollars offered for lispworks
Date:
Message-ID: <87brqm75hk.fsf@fbigm.here>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> | 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
> | affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
> | non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | LispWorks software product [...]
Well in my country I don't think you can exclude someone from selling
his version, of coure no version is allowed to stay at home.
But why should I sell my LispWorks? It has cost me much more
and I can not see how it ages whithin a short time.
>
> This is all just an expression of my personal opinion based solely on
> what I see here. I don't know MWalker and don't have any actual way
> of evaluating his/her actual intent, so I'm not making any claim one
> way or another about that intent or his/her character. And for all I
> know, MWalker was unaware of the license restriction. But it is there.
> And it does seem clear.
It sounds clear but is probably against other laws. In fact I find
this part ridicilous. But I do not care really, I use LispWorks
because it works well for me.
Regards
Friedrich
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> "mwalker" <·······@nospam.Techie.com> writes:
>
> > Of course, so that my copy will be legal, you have to agree to
> > remove your copy from your computers and throw it away, once
> > you sell it to me. :)
> [...]
> > I hope you enjoy the extra christmas cash, I will enjoy
> > lispworks. :-)
>
> I dunno. I just gotta say I really don't like this.
>
> On its face, it seems so innocent. And it's worded in a way that
> seems to seek to be strictly legal. But it seems to me a hair's
> breadth from saying "wink, wink". Maybe tempting people to make
> copies for "christmas cash" and then not actually delete their own
> copy is not the intent of MWalker, but it certainly comes close enough
> to inviting that that it makes me queasy to see this go by... Yes, it
> says just the opposite of what I'm thinking--that "of course" one
> would delete their own copy. But the smiley at that point really
> rubbed me the wrong way.
Is this the current version of LW? If so, then you are almost certainly
correct. Why would anyone sell a current version for less than 50% or
so of the retail price? Only if you are no longer using it and there
happens to be no real market.
Somehow I don't think that mwalker has any expectation that people will
actually delete their copy of LW after selling it to him.
> But it's also, at least on its face, a violation of the LW license
> agreement, whether or not the would-be seller removes their copy.
> Maybe somebody knows some legal precedent that supersedes this kind of
> thing in a license contract, but this is what the text of the license
> grant says, and it contradicts the reassuring wording quoted above:
>
> | 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
> | affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
> | non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | LispWorks software product [...]
>
> This is all just an expression of my personal opinion based solely on
> what I see here. I don't know MWalker and don't have any actual way
> of evaluating his/her actual intent, so I'm not making any claim one
> way or another about that intent or his/her character. And for all I
> know, MWalker was unaware of the license restriction. But it is there.
> And it does seem clear.
It seems clear. I also think it's morally bankrupt to put terms like
that in a license, but whatever.
Michael
Michael Sullivan <···@panix.com> wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
>> | 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
>> | affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
>> | non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> | LispWorks software product [...]
>>
>> This is all just an expression of my personal opinion based solely on
>> what I see here. I don't know MWalker and don't have any actual way
>> of evaluating his/her actual intent, so I'm not making any claim one
>> way or another about that intent or his/her character. And for all I
>> know, MWalker was unaware of the license restriction. But it is there.
>> And it does seem clear.
>
> It seems clear. I also think it's morally bankrupt to put terms like
> that in a license, but whatever.
(load "i-am-not-a-lawyer.lisp")
(require :this-is-not-legal-advice)
(proclaim '(location USA))
It may not be enforceable, under "first sale" doctrine -- for instance,
a book publisher can put so-called "license terms" on the copyright page
of the book, but these cannot actually make it illegal for the purchaser
to re-sell the book. (Yes, book publishers actually tried this at one
point.) See Title 17 USC, section 109.
If you sell someone a box of software and then after the sale they open
it and find that you have written something called a "license agreement"
inside, which claims that "this software is licensed, not sold", that
doesn't change the fact that you did actually sell the copy to them.
That sale makes them a copy owner -- not a copyright holder -- but copy
owners have some specific rights under copyright law, and one of those
is the right to sell the copy they own.
As for the idea that someone needs a copyright license to install a copy
of a purchased program on one computer in order to use it, see Title 17
USC, section 117. Briefly: they don't. (They can't, however, make a
bunch of copies "for use" and then sell those copies, retaining the
originals. That would be cheating. And, after all, copyright law is
there to forbid people from cheating authors -- not to grant publishers
a revenue stream.)
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> And, after all, copyright law is there to forbid people from
> cheating authors -- not to grant publishers a revenue stream.
Most of what you wrote sounded rationally argued, and I've heard that
point of view outlined before. (I'm not equipped to argue its correctness,
but it has a certain reason to it.) However, this seems out of line with
the rest in two regards: (1) intent is not relevant, only effect, and
(2) in the case of software such as we are describing, the author for the
purposes of copyright is, almost always, the same as the publisher.
I'm nearly sure that Xanalys is the author of the software it licenses,
so the distinction you are making seems to be one without a difference.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: 300 dollars offered for lispworks
Date:
Message-ID: <uiskqpqcr.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
In the United States at this time, the enforcability of shrink-wrapped
end-user license agreeements varies according to state law.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> But it's also, at least on its face, a violation of the LW license
> agreement, whether or not the would-be seller removes their copy.
> Maybe somebody knows some legal precedent that supersedes this kind of
> thing in a license contract, but this is what the text of the license
> grant says, and it contradicts the reassuring wording quoted above:
> | 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
> | affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
> | non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | LispWorks software product [...]
There are countries where that kind on clauses in licences
are not valid, and re-selling software is always legal
(no matter what the licence tries to say).
However the original poster is probably american, so he probably
couldn't buy it legally -- at least not from another american.
What about a situation where it is legal to sell in the seller's
country, but not legal to buy in the buyer's country? :-)
What if the buyer lived abroad, in the seller's country
(but didn't have a citizenship in that country)?
Maybe he could not buy what everybody else there could,
if he wanted to respect the laws of his home country? :-)))
Sampo Smolander <·························@helsinki.fi> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote:
> > But it's also, at least on its face, a violation of the LW license
> > agreement, whether or not the would-be seller removes their copy.
> > Maybe somebody knows some legal precedent that supersedes this kind of
> > thing in a license contract, but this is what the text of the license
> > grant says, and it contradicts the reassuring wording quoted above:
>
> > | 1. License Grant and Copying. Xanalys Incorporated, and their
> > | affiliates, ("Xanalys") grant to the Customer ("you") a
> > | non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Xanalys's
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > | LispWorks software product [...]
>
> There are countries where that kind on clauses in licences
> are not valid, and re-selling software is always legal
> (no matter what the licence tries to say).
>
> However the original poster is probably american, so he probably
> couldn't buy it legally -- at least not from another american.
>
> What about a situation where it is legal to sell in the seller's
> country, but not legal to buy in the buyer's country? :-)
> What if the buyer lived abroad, in the seller's country
> (but didn't have a citizenship in that country)?
> Maybe he could not buy what everybody else there could,
> if he wanted to respect the laws of his home country? :-)))
Some states are known to be daring to prosecute acts that are legally
done by strangers in lands out of their juridictions on the futile
reason that they decided it was illegal. Ranging from the chief of a
sovereign country having weapons be built or bought to private persons
contracting personal services on a free market.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ . * * . * .* .
http://www.informatimago.com/ . * . .*
There is no worse tyranny than to force * . . /\ () . *
a man to pay for what he does not . . / .\ . * .
want merely because you think it .*. / * \ . .
would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein . /* o \ .
http://www.theadvocates.org/ * '''||''' .
SCO Spam-magnet: ··········@sco.com ******************
Begin of a quotation from a message written by mere mortal:
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com>:
> > What if the buyer lived abroad, in the seller's country
> > (but didn't have a citizenship in that country)?
> > Maybe he could not buy what everybody else there could,
> > if he wanted to respect the laws of his home country? :-)))
>
> Some states are known to be daring to prosecute acts that are legally
> done by strangers in lands out of their juridictions on the futile
> reason that they decided it was illegal. Ranging from the chief of a
> sovereign country having weapons be built or bought to private persons
> contracting personal services on a free market.
Some countries even threathen governments with invasion if one of their
subjects is brought to justice accused of war-crimes ...
cor
--
The Worlds best understood IM-appliance...........Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47
NO !! I Will NOT Fix Your Computer http://www.geekgrrrl.nl
(setq reply-to (concatenate 'string "Cor Gest " "<cor"'(··@) "clsnet.nl>")
"Sampo Smolander" <·························@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
·················@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>
> What about a situation where it is legal to sell in the seller's
> country, but not legal to buy in the buyer's country? :-)
You mean, like Cuban Cigars? If you try to import them (even via 3rd
parties) you can be arrested, is my understanding. Technically, Americans
cannot even purchase them while abroad, though it's a bit hard to enforce.
The world rejoiced as "Gorbag" <·············@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> "Sampo Smolander" <·························@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> ·················@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> What about a situation where it is legal to sell in the seller's
>> country, but not legal to buy in the buyer's country? :-)
>
> You mean, like Cuban Cigars? If you try to import them (even via 3rd
> parties) you can be arrested, is my understanding. Technically, Americans
> cannot even purchase them while abroad, though it's a bit hard to enforce.
Residents of Detroit could head south to Windsor, where there are
numerous stores and clubs (some of the latter being _rather_ seedy
:-() where they may readily purchase and "consume" them...
--
(format nil ···@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.
mwalker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to purchase lispworks 4.3 for windows, linux, and
> macintosh. I will pay $100 for each operating system version that
> you have ($300 if you have all 3).
This gives rise to a business plan, doesn't it?
What about some kind of "reverse ebay"? ;)
Someone with good Lisp skills should be able to take this off the ground
fairly quickly.
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> What about some kind of "reverse ebay"? ;)
And then we can have a "forward ebay" and then keep all the bids and
offers around after there has been a sale and call the resulting
marketplace an ECN. Then we can build an AI for market-making. Goodbye
NYSE! :)
--
Rahul Jain
From: Christian Hofer
Subject: Re: 300 dollars offered for lispworks
Date:
Message-ID: <bqseb5$ddc$1@online.de>
mwalker schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to purchase lispworks 4.3 for windows, linux, and
> macintosh. I will pay $100 for each operating system version that
> you have ($300 if you have all 3).
For $100 each, I would be willing to sell my lispworks 4.3 for windows
and for linux. And, wait a moment, I think I could offer you the
macintosh version as well.
Of course, it would be only the personal edition ;-)
Chris