Strazdas said:
DoPo said:
This assumtion is necessary to make your post be true. I disagreed with this assumption, hence the whole argument. Therefore, i disagree with your conclusion as well.
Yet you FAILED to provide evidence of my "assumption" being wrong, you FAILED to show evidence of your "assumption" being correct, you FAILED to dismiss my support from BRUCE FUCKING SCHNEIER USING THE WORD AS I DESCRIBED[footnote]if you FAIL to do so again, I would point out YOU FAILED TO SEE THE ALL CAPS[/footnote] and you FAILED on multiple occasions to even understand what I am talking about. Are you even
qualified to talk about the subject
Strazdas said:
Only the last one even mentions legality.
And you FAILED your reading comprehension.
link 1 said:
crack·er
noun \ˈkra-kər\
[...]
7 : hacker 4
[which is]
hack·er
noun \ˈha-kər\
[...]
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
[emphasis mine]
link 3 said:
crack·er /ˈkrækɚ/ noun
[...]
2 : a person who can crack something (such as a safe or a secret code)
▪ a safe cracker [=a criminal who can opens a safe illegally]
[emphasis mine]
Strazdas said:
Cracking a safe is not always illegal. Nor is breaking into somones houses. In fact there are organizations dedicated to breaking into houses when people loose their keys. Circumventing securities is not always illegal.
all murder is killing but not all killing is murder - all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.
Sorry, I didn't want to confuse you.
Strazdas said:
What about if I wrote code and submitted it to Mozilla/Google/whatever - would they then own my code? What if I just submit it on, say, GitHub, and two parties decide to use it - do they both own it? What happens if you buy a product, then spray paint it, and sell (potentially) infinite copies of it with the creator getting no profit?
Yes, they own that copy of the code provided they acquired it legally (do you sign some sort of copyright when submitting to github? i never tried).
You have public and private repos. You get a larger amount of the latter, while you need to pay (or have a school account) to get a private one. Public repos are implicitly open source. So yes, in a sense you sign something. A LICENSE AGREEMENT.
Strazdas said:
If i buy a product and want to sell it, painted or not, i can do that. Creator got a product when he sold me the copy. I cannot duplicate the product legally, this is why there would not be infinite compies but only one.
Hey, can you guess where about *cough*licenseagreement*cough* that is defined? If you install Windows on a system and it fails in some reason, because it's not meant for that system, is Microsoft to blame? If it fails because you modified it, are they to blame again?
And why would you not be able to duplicate the product? You can duplicate Firefox - what makes Windows a different product than Firefox? Or, if not, why are you NOT able to duplicate Firefox? Do you get infinite copies from Mozilla or infinite redownloads of YOUR copy? Is not forking code duplication
by definition? How can you fork code, then?
Shall I go on? What about Java, then - if what you're saying is true, then when I get Java, I own my copy of the library, the JVM, the compiler, etc. So in that case, if I extend a Java class, do I own the code, or does Oracle own it? If I decide to distribute my application, does that count as "duplicating" the product I got from Oracle? If I deploy an application over a network of interoperating nodes (e.g., Jini), would that count as "duplicating" a product or not?
Oh, but don't worry - it's not only Java - I just picked that up as a really good example of what you would call a "product". Really, these questions (and way, way more) can be applied to pretty much all programming languages. If I get the Boost C/C++ library, who owns the code produced with it? Me or the Boost team? Do I duplicate it by distributing an application that uses it? JavaScript is rather funny, too - the product, which would be in a form of JS code, is duplicated by definition. Let's add jQuery to the mix. And jQuery plugins, too. If I make an AJAX call using jQuery...erm, what happens? What if I make an AJAX call that gets some code from a PHP application and then does eval() on it (for fun and profit, my code is the AJAX call, the PHP application is written by somebody else, and the code it's sending me is from yet another person)? Would you please untangle the ownership and consumer rights here?
You didn't really think this through, right?
Strazdas said:
However to do that we should first agree that software is to be treated as product
Why?
Strazdas said:
Where is software defined as product? Quotes, please.
Strazdas said:
Software is also a product in a sense that you produce it and then sell it to a user.
So-o-o, you're going in a circles now - I asked why is software a product just because you buy it and you come up with this -
because you sell it? Seriously?
Strazdas said:
Software is also a product in a sense that the user after buying it has the right to use it in any way (thats legal) that he pleases.
Give me a break - "Software is a product because I say it's a product". Come up with something new, plox.
Strazdas said:
There is also the fact that if software was not a product that would be a first one, and while nothing wrong with being the first one, this is already creating problems from economical perspective.
Oh...
DoPo said:
What's your argument about software needing to ditch licenses, then? "Because everybody else does it"?
Right - so it really is because everybody else does it. ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING?
Let's recap, software is a product because it's a product because you say so because that's how everybody else does it.
Strazdas said:
Because your argument literally was "we buy it, therefore - a product". You might want to dig a little deeper into that - what, in the act of buying, makes something a product?
No. The argumen is we buy it, therefore we own it. If we own it, its a product that can be sold to us.
because we do the process called "buying" that is defined legally. This grants us consumer rights to the product and makes companies adhere to trade laws. These two things already cover the needed things in such case and EULAs are unnecessary nor can they state anything contrary to laws.[/quote]
You have yet to prove one buys software WHEN EACH PIECE OF SOFTWARE INCLUDES A LICENSE AGREEMENT. I CANNOT MAKE THIS CLEARER THAN WRITING IN ALL CAPS. ACTUALLY, YOU SEEM TO BE IGNORING EVERYTHING I EXPLAIN CONSISTENTLY UNTIL I INCLUDE CAPS THERE. CASE IN POINT HOW "KILLING IS EQUIVALENT TO CRACKING" WHICH I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THREE TIMES. WELL, AT THIS POINT YOU EITHER FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THE INCREDIBLY SIMPLE METHOD OF CONVEYING AN IDEA I USED OR YOU DIDN'T AND DECIDE TO DROP IT BECAUSE YOU FELT OVERWHELMED. AT ANY RATE I INCLUDE MORE CAPS THIS POST INCLUDES MORE CAPS SO HOPEFULLY SOMETHING HAPPENS TO BREAK YOU OUT OF YOUR LOOP OF REPEATING YOUR WORDS AD INFINITUM.
And I'll use the chance to nick a phrase
"This assumtion is necessary to make your post be true. I disagreed with this assumption, hence the whole argument. Therefore, i disagree with your conclusion as well."
It's equally applicable.
Strazdas said:
Nimzabaat said:
Cracking can be both legal and illegal depending on situation.
Provide evidence. Seriously, considering you started with this, you are supposed to be the one to prove it. So far you have just been dismissing everything based on incomplete and wrong line of thought. Or just dismissed it without bothering to address it. Case in point - BRUCE SCHNEIER. You didn't even do what I asked and complained about how he doesn't know what he's talking about. I would have so loved to mock you over that.