TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: craigr on February 04, 2005, 11:16:06 AM
-
Can one use Lisps with 2005LT?
craigr
-
Not without an add-on.
-
= Links deleted =
-
http://www.lt-extender.com/englisch/frameset.htm
-
I guess I'm one of the few that equate lisp extenders for LT with cracked warez programs. There are reasons that LT is considerably cheaper than the full package, one of them is no lisp functionality. If you want/need that functionality buy the full package. But then again, maybe it's just me.
-
I see where your coming from Cadaver, but I thought this would be interesting to post here.... Taken from the LT extender website.....
What about the legal situation when using LT-Extenders – or: is LT-Extender legal ?
The clear answer is : YES !
This is really two questions: "Is LT-Extender violating any laws by providing its features ?", and "Will the user violate any laws when using LT-Extender ?" Almost certainly not ! Is LT-Extender violating any Autodesk license agreements ? Not according to the opinions of some highly respected experts in the field of software copyright.
LT-Extender is completely based on own technologies of the author TM-CAD Engineering Torsten Moses.
Both the LTE Kernel system and the LT-Extender technologies are explicitely not violating any copyrights of Autodesk in any way, nor they are breaking any paragraphs declared in the user's AutoCAD© or AutoCAD© LT license contract, regardless wether US or German laws are underlying. Additionally, many of the license contract's paragraphs are very disputed under European rights …
The US copyright related laws know about "Reverse Engineering" that is legal under defined conditions. The main condition claims that any files and data under 'foreign' copyrights (in this case: under Autodesks copyright on AutoCAD© and AutoCAD© LT) may not be manipulated in any way. Exactly this will absolutely not happen in any way by either LTE and LT-Extender !
Neither LTE nor LT-Extender are manipulating any AutoCAD© and/or AutoCAD© LT files in any way; additionally, neither LTE nor LT-Extender are manipulating the effects or internal technologies of any AutoCAD© and/or AutoCAD© LT files ! Therefore, the users position is absolutely legal when using LT-Extender !
-
I think his issue was more of a moral one than a legal one. Which I agree with.
-
Having reflected upon this topic for awhile now I agree on a moral basis that "that's not what Autodesk intended". As such, I deleted the links I posted.
-
I see where your coming from Cadaver, but I thought this would be interesting to post here.... Taken from the LT extender website.....
Oh, I quite understand LTE's published position, I just disagree, and apparently so do others:
http://tinyurl.com/s1ci
http://tinyurl.com/5a85h
http://tinyurl.com/5w4aq
But more to the point for me, is not whether it's "legal", but whether it's "right". if you want the features of a full seat, then be willing to pay for it. but then again, that's just me.
-
Although I think it's morally wrong to use an LT add on to get the same features of AutoCAD I can see how others would see it different. I work in a multi-million dollar company and to us $3,750 (it's actually a lot less than that) a seat is a small price to pay to keep up with the times. Also as the only person in the company who does custom AutoCAD programming I have a copy of 2005 mechanical installed on my personal computer (all i need to do is transfer my work license via a usb disk) so I am able to do freelance work at no cost to me.
I'm sorry but I have to say if I was in any lesser of a position I would have to go the AutoCAD LT + LTE route. $3,750 is just not economically feasible for a smaller company and I don't understand why AutoDesk doesn't see that. It just doesn't make sense why you can get MS Office (4 different applications) for $500 yet AutoCAD cost 7 times as much. I have nothing against anyone making a dime for their work but I just don't see how it's worth that much money. LDT, MAP or Inventor maybe, but a $2,000+ price increase for the ability to truly customize and some added features is just crazy.
-
I am not so sure that Autodesk has any legal or moral right to prevent the development or application of third party software.
On a moral (or what is right) lets look at it a little bit deeper.
If you do mechanical design using plain AutoCAD then isi it right to not purchase MDT? I don't think anyone would argue that you should particularly if the plain package suits most of your needs. So what about LDD? Should you not buy plain AutoCAD if you are going to do civil work? What about all of those lisp and vba routines that do essentially the same thing as LDD, ADT, and MDT? Is it right that you should use them instead of buying the appropriate development package from Autodesk?
I see this as a ploy to force people to purchase the programs they want you to use and in the end create great wealth for the company. If I were a shareholder I might think that was a good idea until I realized that there are really about 3 different scenrios that could take place.
1) Users will be forced to purchase full blown AutoCAD and will bite the bullet.
2) Users will continue with the "unauthorized" activity
3) Users will use a different development package, such as IntelliCAD
I suspect that the largest majority of the users of LT will take option #2 and #3
The "right" thing to do would be for Autodesk to drop pending lawsuits (if they are still pending ... that was Oct 2003) and embrace the ingenuity and development of more third party applications.
The simple fact is that anyone with a little bit of windows programming knowledge can write programming that will work with any program, regardless of whether the original developer ever intended it to work that way or not. If I wanted to write a program to draw a box in LT, I could write an API that would identify the command line window and simply put the desired commands there. It would neither infringe upon the copyright or licensing agreement of AutoCAD because it would not use AutoCAD code. It would use only the base functionality of windows commands.
Quite honestly I am proud that I continually produce software that works with AutoCAD, extending it's capabilities beyond that which Autodesk originally designed. In my line of work, if I were to purchase the Autodesk software using the premise that it is not "right" to develop applications that are not within the intent of use of the program, then I would be morally obligated to buy LDD, ADT, MDT and Inventor .... Clearly this is NOT what I am doing and nor will I. Sure there are functions in those packages that would make my life a bit easier, but I can develop a similar command or purchase one without too much hassle if I need to.
I support the actions of LT-Extender as a viable option to the overpriced software we now currently are relegated to use.
-
3 cheers for Keith!
I agree with you entirely. One thing that I am seeing with all the vertical applications is that, they are not complete, they have bugs. There is always a quirk that we have to work around or come up with at times.
If the users writes their own code/program, it will meet there needs and if it doesn't they just start working on the code again.
A lot of us stake our lives/companies on the software we use. We cannot have something stop working or won't get fixed until the next release...
A great analogy to this is like putting nitrous/turbo/supercharger on your car. ok you might void part of your warranty if a brand new car but you are not going to be sued(I hope not) over modifying your vehicle. Some will say we don't really own the software but that is another story.
Pieter
-
I actually think the underlying motivation is that Autodesk is experiencing the crunch that so many other companies have had to deal with.
Do I spend $3500 per seat just so I can utilize existing free aftermarket programs or do I spend $1200 + $395 for a lisp extender and continue about my merry way.
Autodesk likely looked at their marketing data and saw the LT sales growing while their other packages were not. They probably asked themselves why and decided that a software developer was causing them the lost revenue.
Personally, I think that purchasing LT is like buying a car without a motor or drivetrain. It looks good, and coasts really good down hills, but when you really need to do something it lacks any ability to get the job done.
Imagine if GM started selling Automobiles for $2000 without motors, but if you wanted the motor it would cost an additional $18000 ... heck you can buy a brand new motor installed for $4000 so for $6000 you have a new car as good as the GM version ... but then they sue you telling you that their $2000 version was not designed to have a motor so you must stop using it.
I say tough ... If Autodesk doesn't want users to extend the capabilities of LT, then they should stop selling cars without motors.
-
I say tough ... If Autodesk doesn't want users to extend the capabilities of LT, then they should stop selling cars without motors.
:lol: :lol:
-
I agree with Keith.
In this world you use what you can afford to use, while we would all like to drive a Ferrari to work, some of us unfortunately have to cycle.
Profit margins at most companies are tight, and there is no way most can afford to continually upgrade their software every year and most bosses would rather buy LT with a lisp extender than shell out thousands for software which in reality they would never fully use.
My friends company still use R14, which is perfect for their needs , all of the work they do is strictly 2D layouts. But one of his clients use 2005, so their drawings are incompatible. They can't afford to upgrade, so LT is his companies only option if they want to use their clients drawings, and they have placed an order for LT extender to allow them to use the lisp routines they have written for their system.
Maybe AutoDesk wouldn't have the problem if they charged a reasonable price for their software?
-
Profit margins at most companies are tight, and there is no way most can afford to continually upgrade their software every year and most bosses would rather buy LT with a lisp extender than shell out thousands for software which in reality they would never fully use.
Maybe if those companies would look at other means of saving money, they could afford a subscription service for the upgrades. Is it absolutely necessary to stay in THE most expensive hotels when on business trips?? Is that conference in Las Vegas REALLY necessary?? It wouldn't take much to turn some money around for software upgrades.
My friends company still use R14, which is perfect for their needs , all of the work they do is strictly 2D layouts. But one of his clients use 2005, so their drawings are incompatible. They can't afford to upgrade, so LT is his companies only option if they want to use their clients drawings, and they have placed an order for LT extender to allow them to use the lisp routines they have written for their system.
Maybe AutoDesk wouldn't have the problem if they charged a reasonable price for their software?
Your friend really needs to look for a better place of employment before it's too late. If they ever lay him off, where is he going to find work only knowing R14 AutoCad? Most companies now want at least 2002, some looking at 04 and 05 already, and then there are the ADT, MDT and/or LDT packages they want you to know.
Charging a resonable price would be really nice but, big corporations are always shelling out the big bucks, why change for the little guy. I worked for one company that has a subscription price of $48,000.00 a year. I think even the accountants had AutoCad on thier machines there.. haha..
Customize LT as much as possible.. I'm all for it. I just have a hard time convincing others the value of lisp routines. In my 15 years of cadd experience, I can say that I've worked with a good 100 different operators and I can honestly say, I talk to just two about lisp every couple of months or so. I took the time and showed all the others the values of it but, none of them held the interest.
-
I'm with Keith.... We don't go to Vegas or stay in fancy hotels. Hell, my Co. can hardly afford training thru our vendor! We struggle to keep up with the upgrades, usually every third one. It works out cheaper than the subscription price for that same time..... I'm doing full-blown 3D in vanilla CAD .... with LOTS of help from 3rd party code. To take A-Desks side would make me....hell, most of us....illegal. After all, it's not "Authorized" modification of the original proggy..........
If the extender code is not a de-recompilation of Autodesks, It's not in violation of the law.....wanna bet they lose this one? And when they do, it"s gonna open up a whole new can-o-worms for them!
-
When we upgraded the last time, (6x1000 = 6000) then after getting the upgrade we found that we had to buy new computers to run the damn thing ... now I like my new computer so don't get the wrong idea, but then 6x3700 = 22200 + 6000 = 28200 .... now Autodesk tells us that if we give them another 500 per year per seat then we can upgrade at no additional cost.... hmmm.... 6x500 = 3000 py .....
Yes it IS the cost of doing business, but when you can buy a comparable software package that will run on most computers for under $500 for the whole shebang, it is no wonder Autodesk has so much piracy with their product.
AutoCAD 2005 ADT is $4700 per seat. If we were to outright purchase those seats, that is $28200. If I can get the same functionality with a $7800 investment, then you had better believe that I will.
Those who support such activity are the same ones who think it is a good idea to pay higher taxes... and we know how ignorant that is...
-
Maybe if those companies would look at other means of saving money, they could afford a subscription service for the upgrades. Is it absolutely necessary to stay in THE most expensive hotels when on business trips?? Is that conference in Las Vegas REALLY necessary?? It wouldn't take much to turn some money around for software upgrades.
Is it REALLY necessary to purchase the most expensive drafting software package?
I'd much rather use IntelliCAD everyday for the price of a seat of AutoCAD every year.
Customize LT as much as possible.. I'm all for it. I just have a hard time convincing others the value of lisp routines. In my 15 years of cadd experience, I can say that I've worked with a good 100 different operators and I can honestly say, I talk to just two about lisp every couple of months or so. I took the time and showed all the others the values of it but, none of them held the interest.
To bad the people you work with are stupid....
I too have worked with lots of people on AutoCAD, the difference is that the good ones make FULL use of the programming languages while the mediocre ones are still drawing every little widget every time they need to put one in the drawing.
Trust me if my hands were tied with LT, I'd have customization like you would not believe. I'd make stand alone applications to work with it and develop my own programming interface.
-
As I am sitting here reading this post, it comes to mind that I am using Eagle Point software and not LDD.
Is this morally wrong?
We are using lisp routines, Diesel expressions, VB(A), C++ and Visual C to create macros to do functionalities that AutoCAD does already, (just not how we want).
What about using Bubble CAD instead of the Properties in AutoCAD
What about using a different Text editor – not the one with AutoCAD
Share ware of any kind
Are these morally wrong?
If so then what about all the other programs… Are you using Internet explorer with the Windows environment or are you using Netscape or are you using Mozilla, or something else. Same for e-mail, Outlook or GroupWise or whatever. Adobe over Corel over Photo editor.
Where will it stop?
Isn’t that why Microsoft was sued? Not letting you have a choice.
Little :O)
-
If you do mechanical design using plain AutoCAD then isi it right to not purchase MDT?
There is a HUGE difference between using a tool AS IT WAS DESIGNED for different uses, and using an inappropriatly modified tool for something it was never designed to do. Using plain AutoCAD "as it is designed" is different from using a "cracked" version of MDT. IS popping open the cable box and hot-wiring it to pick up un-susribed stations morally acceptable? I, personally, don't think so, and I view LTE the same.
Is it right that you should use them instead of buying the appropriate development package from Autodesk?
Yes, that is how the software is designed and marketed. If they disabled the lisp functionality to preclude such developement, then it would not... but then it would be LT.
I see this as a ploy to force people to purchase the programs they want you to use and in the end create great wealth for the company.
I can't speak for anyone else, but that's why I'm in business.
Show of hands, who is not in business to make money??
The "right" thing to do would be for Autodesk to drop pending lawsuits (if they are still pending ... that was Oct 2003) and embrace the ingenuity and development of more third party applications.
Then what about those of us who over the years have needed the advanced customization capailities of the software, and have paid for that privilege? Our original investment and periodic upgrade fees have been for nought? I doubt that AutoDESK wishes to alienate that large a portion of the current user base, and I think doing so would do great harm to their profit margin.
The simple fact is that anyone with a little bit of windows programming knowledge can write programming that will work with any program, regardless of whether the original developer ever intended it to work that way or not.
The same truth is that nearly anyone with a little specific knowledge can crack nearly any program on the market. The capability of something is separate from it's morality.
Quite honestly I am proud that I continually produce software that works with AutoCAD, extending it's capabilities beyond that which Autodesk originally designed. In my line of work, if I were to purchase the Autodesk software using the premise that it is not "right" to develop applications that are not within the intent of use of the program, then I would be morally obligated to buy LDD, ADT, MDT and Inventor .... Clearly this is NOT what I am doing and nor will I.
discussed and dismissed above.
I support the actions of LT-Extender as a viable option to the overpriced software we now currently are relegated to use.
Would you support, as well, any other "cracked", "hacked" or pirated software? I mean $500 for an office suite is insane. Would it be okay if we just bought a cracked version for our once a week use?
-
A great analogy to this is like putting nitrous/turbo/supercharger on your car. ok you might void part of your warranty if a brand new car but you are not going to be sued(I hope not) over modifying your vehicle. Some will say we don't really own the software but that is another story.
Actually it's NOT another story, but the same. If you modified a rent car in such a fashion, you'd be arrested, and rightly so.
-
Profit margins at most companies are tight, and there is no way most can afford to continually upgrade their software every year and most bosses would rather buy LT with a lisp extender than shell out thousands for software which in reality they would never fully use.
So if my profits are tight it's okay to buy cracked warez? Is it okay to snip you code off these boards without giving credit?
-
I'm doing full-blown 3D in vanilla CAD .... with LOTS of help from 3rd party code. To take A-Desks side would make me....hell, most of us....illegal. After all, it's not "Authorized" modification of the original proggy..........
Sure it is, it is "as designed". AutoDESK markets the flexibility of the full package and your customizations are completely within the spirit of the exchange. Adding the lisp functionality (and therefore the ability to customize) is the reason it costs more than the "starter kit".
-
Those who support such activity are the same ones who think it is a good idea to pay higher taxes... and we know how ignorant that is...
So can I assume you think it's okay to "cheat" on your taxes?? I would hope not.
Let's remember this discussion when some outfit in India is telling our bosses that they can get the same functionality from them at a fraction of our cost.
-
Is it REALLY necessary to purchase the most expensive drafting software package?
ummm... that would be Microstation :wink:
I'd much rather use IntelliCAD everyday for the price of a seat of AutoCAD every year.
Fine, I'd have no problem with that, go right ahead. But using cracked software, which is what LTE is (IMMHO) is a different matter.
-
Is this morally wrong?
Nope, that is "as designed". But if you take some of EaglePoint's programming, uncook it and install it on a seat for which you have not purchased Eagle Point, you've crossed the line. That is basically what LTE does. They figured out a way to unblock lisp functionality in AutoDESK's product (a functionality they charge extra to access). Just like a signal de-scrambler.
-
Would you support, as well, any other "cracked", "hacked" or pirated software? I mean $500 for an office suite is insane. Would it be okay if we just bought a cracked version for our once a week use?
FWIW,
You don't buy "cracked:hacked" software? Generally software is cracked so you don't have to fork out the bucks for it, which is stealing. In the case of LTE, you already BOUGHT AutoCAD LT and you are BUYING add-on software that improves AutoCAD LT. Sounds like a deal to me.
Ron
8)
-
If so then what about all the other programs… Are you using Internet explorer with the Windows environment or are you using Netscape or are you using Mozilla, or something else. Same for e-mail, Outlook or GroupWise or whatever. Adobe over Corel over Photo editor.
This is NOT about accepted "as designed" use, as much as others here would like it to be. It's about cracking software to remove designed blocks to certain functionality.
Adobe gives away a free PDF reader. If someone found a way to crack the reader and give the user full Adobe functionality, it would be morally unacceptable to use that software.
Not letting you have a choice.
You have complete choice. You can buy Full AutoCAD, or LT. LT is cheaper, but if one wants/needs the full functionality of full AutoCAD, then one needs to pay for it.
But apparently that's just me.
-
FWIW,
You don't buy "cracked:hacked" software? Generally software is cracked so you don't have to fork out the bucks for it, which is stealing. In the case of LTE, you already BOUGHT AutoCAD LT and you are BUYING add-on software that improves AutoCAD LT. Sounds like a deal to me.
The writers of LTE found a way to UNblock lisp functionality in LT. Basically they cracked LT, and sell a program that helps you do the same.
-
Can one use Lisps with 2005LT?
craigr
Yes.
;)
-
CADaver, I understand your position, I just do not subscribe to it. AutoCAD is consistently being pushed to the limits of what it is capable of doing. By pushing the limits of the design capabilities of a software product, you enhance its value. I do not argue that point with you. By including lisp functionality you make AutoCAD LT more user customizable. The question, I believe, as it has been put forth here is whether or not it is acceptable to use a product that is not consistent with the original intent of the product. Clearly Autodesk did not intend for LT to have lisp functions .. or did they .. it WAS compiled into the programming until LT2005 (which it no longer is) but LTE has developed an addon for LT2005 that DOES use lisp.
Should we then presume that because AutoCAD does not support java, python, or any other host of programming languages that if some developer devised a way to utilize those languages in AutoCAD that those instances would also be immoral from the pedestal you have perched yourself upon?
Lets ask this then ...
Autodesk gave away express tools and in the licensing agreement they were freely distributable..in a mid-release change of heart Autodesk decided to charge $100 for the express tools. Now if I give away the express tools package (licensed seperately and freely distributable) to a person who purchased 2002 without the express tools package, is that also morally repugnant? Should I be charged with violation of copyright? cracking? stealing?
Now what about the QuikPix software? is that too hacking and cracking the software to make it do things that Autodesk never intended? ... in fact things that are in the expresstools that they charge $100 for..
For that matter is it wrong to write a program to do something with AutoCAD that Autodesk wants you to buy from them?
You cannot have a utopian world where the lines are so clearly cut.
If I were to consider that I should not utilize AutoCAD LT (or full blown for that matter) to a potential beyond what Autodesk markets then I could do no customization.
From your contentions I gather that the reason you feel that using a lisp extender with LT is wrong, is because Autodesk has another product that is designed for use with lisp and if you want lisp functionality, you should purchase that package.
If that is your opinion, then I hope you will maintain your moral high ground and stop using your lisps that you have developed to do things that Autodesk has developed a program to do as well. After all, they DO offer a package to do piping and mechanical. To use your own would be wrong because Autodesk is in the business to make money, and if they wanted you to do piping and mechanical drawings then they would have included MDT with all versions of AutoCAD ... that IS essentially what you are asserting.
In this issue you are flat wrong and the courts will likely end up supporting that assertion.
Now who wants a lisp extender for LT ....
-
Yo Keith!!! Well said.....
-
Agree to disagree?
-
I wonder how the EU competitions law would see this.
Microsoft has been fined the world over for including media player as part of their operating system, placing other companies at a disadvantage.
Surely by attempting to restrict third party software AutoDESK is in some sort of violation of these same laws.
-
Evidently there are several other companies that are also developing lisp extenders as well as 3d solids, architectural, mechanical and other apps for LT
You should check out this link (http://www.tenlinks.com/CAD/USERS/autocad_lt/autocad_lt_addons.htm)
-
The question, I believe, as it has been put forth here is whether or not it is acceptable to use a product that is not consistent with the original intent of the product.
Agreed. The original intent of full AutoCAD, is to provide the ability to customize with several languages provided with the software. The original intent of LT was to block that functionality.
Autodesk gave away express tools and in the licensing agreement they were freely distributable..in a mid-release change of heart Autodesk decided to charge $100 for the express tools. Now if I give away the express tools package (licensed seperately and freely distributable) to a person who purchased 2002 without the express tools package, is that also morally repugnant? Should I be charged with violation of copyright? cracking? stealing?
Is it freely distributable? The insert in MY express tools CD said otherwise. If it is freely distributable, then you are free to distribute. If not, it is NOT acceptable to freely distribute. Ask Stig about his Lisp tutorial on this forum.
Now what about the QuikPix software? is that too hacking and cracking the software to make it do things that Autodesk never intended? ...
Are you purposely clouding the point? Are do you really not see the difference between writing functions with the language provided and "AS DESIGNED" and the fact the LTE "cracked" LT's coding?
QuikPix used the tool that AutoDESK provided to enhance the product. Thousands of us do that every day "BY DESIGN". AutoDESK provided those tools for that purpose for those of us who purchased the full ride. AutoDESK NEVER intended for LT to have lisp extended capabilities, and then PURPOSELY removed that functionality from their hugely discounted "starter version". LTE circumvented that purpose by cracking AutoDESK's code.
For that matter is it wrong to write a program to do something with AutoCAD that Autodesk wants you to buy from them?
You cannot have a utopian world where the lines are so clearly cut.
If I were to consider that I should not utilize AutoCAD LT (or full blown for that matter) to a potential beyond what Autodesk markets then I could do no customization.
Again you're stretching apples into grapefruit by attempting to compare to completely different concepts. One is "as designed" the other is stolen.
If that is your opinion, then I hope you will maintain your moral high ground and stop using your lisps that you have developed to do things that Autodesk has developed a program to do as well. After all, they DO offer a package to do piping and mechanical. To use your own would be wrong because Autodesk is in the business to make money, and if they wanted you to do piping and mechanical drawings then they would have included MDT with all versions of AutoCAD ... that IS essentially what you are asserting.
Again, you're misrepresenting the acual case. I would agree with you, had I cracked a version of MDT sucked out the code and dropped it into my plain jane AutoCAD. But that is NOT what happened. I use the tool plain autocad, AS IT WAS DESIGNED to be used, and used the tools provided by AutoDESK to extend the capability of my plain AutoCAD. LTE did NOT do that. They "cracked" LT and found a way to unblock functionality that AutoDESK CLEARLY desired to remain blocked.
-
The question, I believe, as it has been put forth here is whether or not it is acceptable to use a product that is not consistent with the original intent of the product.
Agreed. The original intent of full AutoCAD, is to provide the ability to customize with several languages provided with the software. The original intent of LT was to block that functionality.
Wrong...the original intent was to give users an affordable package..in fact lisp capabilities were included in the first 2 releases of LT and were dropped in later releases. The lisp module still shipped with all LT products until LT2005. With the release of 2005, lisp was completely removed from the installation package. The point is moot for 2005... the new release of LT-Extender was written to interact with a lisp interpreter completely separate from LT and in no way utilizes LT except the published and freely available LT and Windows API calls. If there were ever any question about it's legality (which Autodesk was the only ones that thought so) The fact that there is no lisp interpreter in LT 2005 (disabled or otherwise) makes the argument invalid ... at least for LT 2005. The language could just as easily be Python, Java, or any other host of scripting languages. Autodesk has absolutely NO legal right to lisp as it has been given to public domain by the original developers back in the 50's prior to Autodesk even being conceived.
Autodesk gave away express tools and in the licensing agreement they were freely distributable..in a mid-release change of heart Autodesk decided to charge $100 for the express tools. Now if I give away the express tools package (licensed seperately and freely distributable) to a person who purchased 2002 without the express tools package, is that also morally repugnant? Should I be charged with violation of copyright? cracking? stealing?
Is it freely distributable? The insert in MY express tools CD said otherwise. If it is freely distributable, then you are free to distribute. If not, it is NOT acceptable to freely distribute. Ask Stig about his Lisp tutorial on this forum.
I would not distribute it if it were not within the original licensing agreement. There is a marked difference between the original version of Expresstools distributed freely back in late '98 and early '99 and the version that ships with AutoCAD today (or even the $100 version)
To wit:
pre charging period:
;;;
;;; Copyright 1998-1999 by Autodesk, Inc.
;;;
;;; Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
;;; for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
;;; that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
;;; that both that copyright notice and the limited warranty and
;;; restricted rights notice below appear in all supporting
;;; documentation.
;;;
;;; AUTODESK PROVIDES THIS PROGRAM "AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS.
;;; AUTODESK SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
;;; MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE. AUTODESK, INC.
;;; DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE
;;; UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE.
;;;
;;; Use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to
;;; restrictions set forth in FAR 52.227-19 (Commercial Computer
;;; Software - Restricted Rights) and DFAR 252.227-7013(c)(1)(ii)
;;; (Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software), as applicable.
post charging:
;;; Copyright © 1999 by Autodesk, Inc.
;;;
;;; Your use of this software is governed by the terms and conditions of the
;;; License Agreement you accepted prior to installation of this software.
;;; Please note that pursuant to the License Agreement for this software,
;;; "[c]opying of this computer program or its documentation except as
;;; permitted by this License is copyright infringement under the laws of
;;; your country. If you copy this computer program without permission of
;;; Autodesk, you are violating the law."
;;;
;;; AUTODESK PROVIDES THIS PROGRAM "AS IS" AND WITH ALL FAULTS.
;;; AUTODESK SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
;;; MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE. AUTODESK, INC.
;;; DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE
;;; UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE.
;;;
;;; Use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to
;;; restrictions set forth in FAR 52.227-19 (Commercial Computer
;;; Software - Restricted Rights) and DFAR 252.227-7013(c)(1)(ii)
;;; (Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software), as applicable.
;;;
Now whenever I see the first header I do what I will with the software the second I do not. Just because your version has the restrictions you should not assume that ALL others have the same restriction.
Now what about the QuikPix software? is that too hacking and cracking the software to make it do things that Autodesk never intended? ...
Are you purposely clouding the point? Are do you really not see the difference between writing functions with the language provided and "AS DESIGNED" and the fact the LTE "cracked" LT's coding?
Clouding? no, your definition of "cracked" obviously is very broad, except when it suits your purpose. I think you are the one with the clouded perception.
QuikPix used the tool that AutoDESK provided to enhance the product. Thousands of us do that every day "BY DESIGN". AutoDESK provided those tools for that purpose for those of us who purchased the full ride. AutoDESK NEVER intended for LT to have lisp extended capabilities, and then PURPOSELY removed that functionality from their hugely discounted "starter version". LTE circumvented that purpose by cracking AutoDESK's code.
Just in case you were not aware, ManuSoft is ALSO a party to the Autodesk lawsuit seeking to block third party developers. In fact, I looked lots of information on the status of this suit. Autodesk never claims that the software was cracked, hacked or otherwise reverse engineered. Instead they claim:
1) These companies copied code and files from Autodesk to create a lisp interpreter for LT. (if they did then I will agree with you)
2) These companies are not registered Autodesk developers and as such are not allowed to sell Autodesk Add-ons
For that matter is it wrong to write a program to do something with AutoCAD that Autodesk wants you to buy from them?
You cannot have a utopian world where the lines are so clearly cut.
If I were to consider that I should not utilize AutoCAD LT (or full blown for that matter) to a potential beyond what Autodesk markets then I could do no customization.
Again you're stretching apples into grapefruit by attempting to compare to completely different concepts. One is "as designed" the other is stolen.
Please, tell me what code or file was "stolen" was it functionality that was "stolen"? If it was functionality, then I think I have hit the nail on the head... Would you think it is "stealing, hacking or cracking" if someone wrote a python interpreter for AutoCAD? Do you not understand that lisp DOES NOT belong to Autodesk?
If that is your opinion, then I hope you will maintain your moral high ground and stop using your lisps that you have developed to do things that Autodesk has developed a program to do as well. After all, they DO offer a package to do piping and mechanical. To use your own would be wrong because Autodesk is in the business to make money, and if they wanted you to do piping and mechanical drawings then they would have included MDT with all versions of AutoCAD ... that IS essentially what you are asserting.
Again, you're misrepresenting the acual case. I would agree with you, had I cracked a version of MDT sucked out the code and dropped it into my plain jane AutoCAD. But that is NOT what happened. I use the tool plain autocad, AS IT WAS DESIGNED to be used, and used the tools provided by AutoDESK to extend the capability of my plain AutoCAD. LTE did NOT do that. They "cracked" LT and found a way to unblock functionality that AutoDESK CLEARLY desired to remain blocked.
I suppose that is nothing like how you found a way to utilize the programming you have to do things that Autodesk has tools for sale to do .. things they INTENDED for you to purchase if you wanted that functionality.
Using your scenario they could then argue that if you want to do piping, then you must buy their package that does piping, and not use another product that they do not approve.
If Autodesk wins this case, it will stop many companies from doing all sorts of add-on software that is in direct competition with Autodesk products. I believe, as do many others, that this is nothing more than Autodesk attempting to stop companies from competing with them against themselves, essentially giving Autodesk the final say in who can sell an addon product to whom and for what purpose.
-
Wrong...the original intent was to give users an affordable package..in fact lisp capabilities were included in the first 2 releases of LT and were dropped in later releases.
Then LTE was unecessary for the first two releases, correct? It was not needed until AutoDESK blocked access to that functionality.
The lisp module still shipped with all LT products until LT2005.
with access to it blocked by the intent of the seller. LTE circumvented that intent. Just like jumping your cable box to get premium channels without paying.
If there were ever any question about it's legality (which Autodesk was the only ones that thought so) The fact that there is no lisp interpreter in LT 2005 (disabled or otherwise) makes the argument invalid ... at least for LT 2005.
it is my understanding that AutoDESK has inacted no proceedings against the 2005 version, but continues to pursue rectification of previous releases.
Now whenever I see the first header I do what I will with the software the second I do not. Just because your version has the restrictions you should not assume that ALL others have the same restriction.
I didn't, if you'll go back and read what I posted, you'll notice that I said if it was freely ditributable then you are free to distribute. Mine is not. It would be unacceptable to distribute mine, even though it is identical to yours.
Just in case you were not aware, ManuSoft is ALSO a party to the Autodesk lawsuit seeking to block third party developers.
It was my understanding that AutoDESK's problem with ManuSoft had nothing to do with QuikPik, but was related to ManuSoft's manipulation of code (unrelated to quikpik) resevered for authorized developers.
In fact, I looked lots of information on the status of this suit. Autodesk never claims that the software was cracked, hacked or otherwise reverse engineered. Instead they claim:
1) These companies copied code and files from Autodesk to create a lisp interpreter for LT. (if they did then I will agree with you)
2) These companies are not registered Autodesk developers and as such are not allowed to sell Autodesk Add-ons
Please, tell me what code or file was "stolen" was it functionality that was "stolen"?
""1) These companies copied code and files from Autodesk to create a lisp interpreter for LT. (if they did then I will agree with you)"" Manipulating source code meant only for authorized personell falls into that catagory.
I suppose that is nothing like how you found a way to utilize the programming you have to do things that Autodesk has tools for sale to do .. things they INTENDED for you to purchase if you wanted that functionality.
Again apples to grapefruit. I used the tools they provided as they were designed, as AutoDESK intended they be used.
Using your scenario they could then argue that if you want to do piping, then you must buy their package that does piping, and not use another product that they do not approve.
Again you are purposely obfuscating the issue. Surely you have a better grip on language than that.
If Autodesk wins this case, it will stop many companies from doing all sorts of add-on software
Only if it violates the as designed condition of the software. Trotting out a "boogyman" does little for the discussion.
I believe, as do many others, that this is nothing more than Autodesk attempting to stop companies from competing with them against themselves,
Only if they are using code to which they have no right. How would you, or anyone else on this forum, feel if someone bundled up your beautiful code posted here and sold it? Miffed I bet, I've seen flare-ups about not posting where it came from, I can only imagine the flak if someone was selling it.
Personally, I always thought that AutoDesk marketing LT was a mistake. They were producing a product that competed with themselves.
...essentially giving Autodesk the final say in who can sell an addon product to whom and for what purpose.
AutoDESK should have the right to restrict access to certain portions of their code. Should they NOT? Should we all have complete and open access to everyone else's code? Or should we be able to retain the right's to share our code with those we wish, and restrict it others? If AutoDESK can not control it's code, how in the world will some small programmer be able to protect his.
-
Autodesk has absolutely NO legal right to lisp as it has been given to public domain by the original developers back in the 50's prior to Autodesk even being conceived.
Autolisp/VisualLisp is not lisp. It's a modified version of early xlisp.
Also most things released to the public domain can be modified and relicensed however the modifier sees fit. Usually as long as they give the original author credit. I'm not sure what copyrights AutoDesk holds regarding these two technologies but that could be a factor that would hold up in court.
-
Manipulating source code meant only for authorized personell falls into that catagory.
Perhaps manipulating source code WOULD be a violation, it is a gray area legally, BUT unless someone hacked into Autodesks computers or copied the source code from one of their computers, they have NOT manipulated source code. What they have done is manipulate data. If I purchase a license from a company for software, they do not tell me that I cannot exploit that software to it's full potential, they tell me that I may not reverse engineer the software, they tell me that I may not copy, sell, or give the software away, they DO NOT tell me that I can't send commands to the software from an external program EVEN IF they NEVER intended for it to work in that manner.
You can manipulate data, and data is NOT owned by anyone except the producer of that data. Courts have long held that when a program creates user data it belongs to the user alone, and the creating program has absolutely no legal right to it. As long as the original program remained intact and unmodified, Autodesk will lose this battle, and in the end, they will lose more than the lawsuit, they will lose dollars when people finally get tired of their shenanigans.
I suppose that is nothing like how you found a way to utilize the programming you have to do things that Autodesk has tools for sale to do .. things they INTENDED for you to purchase if you wanted that functionality.
Again apples to grapefruit. I used the tools they provided as they were designed, as AutoDESK intended they be used.
We keep talking about intent .... do you not think that Autodesk fully intends that when people need a piping program or architectural program that they come to them for the appropriate add-on? They INTEND to prevent third party developers by requiring that you register with them for the "right" to develop programs for their software packages. That in and of itself is the EXACT reason why Microsoft was sued and eventually lost.
Using your scenario they could then argue that if you want to do piping, then you must buy their package that does piping, and not use another product that they do not approve.
Again you are purposely obfuscating the issue. Surely you have a better grip on language than that.
When "they" came for the business that made add-ons, I said nothing, I wasn't a business ... when "they" came for me for making add-ons, no one said anything ...
You my friend are the one who is obfuscating the issue...if you would but once consider that if Autodesk decided tomorrow that you should not be allowed to do piping (or anything else for that matter) without purchasing their package, then you would understand my position. It just so happens that I understand yours, I just do not subscribe to it.
Answer this for me if you would ....
If I developed a Python interpreter for AutoCAD would THAT be a violation?
Did Autodesk ever INTEND for Python to be a programming language for AutoCAD?
How about this? When Autodesk finally kills lisp (they have been talking about it for the last 3 releases) will you gladly put away all of your lisp programs?
If Autodesk wins this case, it will stop many companies from doing all sorts of add-on software
Only if it violates the as designed condition of the software. Trotting out a "boogyman" does little for the discussion.
"As Designed" is not a condition in the licensing agreement, and the "boogeyman" in this instance IS Autodesk.
I believe, as do many others, that this is nothing more than Autodesk attempting to stop companies from competing with them against themselves,
Only if they are using code to which they have no right. How would you, or anyone else on this forum, feel if someone bundled up your beautiful code posted here and sold it? Miffed I bet, I've seen flare-ups about not posting where it came from, I can only imagine the flak if someone was selling it.
When I post code, it is there to be modified, to be changed, and made to do things that I did not intend for it to do...BUT...if I post compiled code I do not intend for people to modify it, decompile it, or change it, however, if they found a way to make it do more than I originally intended, then good for them...the issue of selling it is not an issue when comparing it to the process at hand. LTE and ManuSoft are NOT selling hacked Autodesk programs, they are selling programs that work along side and in concert with Autodesk products. There is a huge difference.
Personally, I always thought that AutoDesk marketing LT was a mistake. They were producing a product that competed with themselves.
...essentially giving Autodesk the final say in who can sell an addon product to whom and for what purpose.
AutoDESK should have the right to restrict access to certain portions of their code. Should they NOT? Should we all have complete and open access to everyone else's code? Or should we be able to retain the right's to share our code with those we wish, and restrict it others? If AutoDESK can not control it's code, how in the world will some small programmer be able to protect his.
Autodesk has always held that "registered" third party developers can have free unabated access to their source code, their computers, and their libraries. If I wanted to have access to the code I could pay Autodesk for the right to see that code, I do not, LTE did not, ManuSoft did not, therefore, if I produce a program that changes the functionality or look of AutoCAD am I in violation of copyright? Using your way of thinking, I would.
I'll post an example of what you term "hacking" and "cracking" ... that is nothing more than using Autodesk PUBLISHED and Microsoft PUBLISHED API calls ... stay tuned
-
I kin hardlee wate!!! Sittin heer with "bated breath" (got cheese in my mouf.......)
-
Run this app (http://theswamp.org/lilly_pond/keith/API.exe?nossi=1) and you will be able to change the caption of the AutoCAD window. It of course is not permanent, because it does not modify any Autodesk code.
Autodesk did not INTEND for people to be able to change the window text, if they did, they presumably would have made the "caption" property in VBA read/write, but they didn't they purposely made it read only, meaning that you cannot change it using AutoCAD VBA programming alone. BUT if you utilize Windows (user32.dll published API) and AutoCAD (acad.tlb & vba332.dll published API) you suddenly are able to do it. Is it hacking or cracking? I think not ... but it clearly does something that Autodesk never intended to happen.
-
I didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest with my original post.
But just to add my 2 cents to where the topic migrated to....
If 'modifying' AutoCad with 'add ons' is morally wrong then are my 306 customizations (macros) wrong also?
AutoCadLT doesn't fit our bill as is, so I modify it to do what I need to do. This is the same as purchasing an 'add on' from anyone else as I see it.
As long as the 'add on' programs don't decompile or change the files of AutoCad, I don't understand why it would be morally wrong.
No one can write a software that fits EVERYONES needs, that is why 'add ons' exist. If Autodesk doesnt provide them, why can't someone else?
Just my opion, craigr
-
We keep talking about intent .... do you not think that Autodesk fully intends that when people need a piping program or architectural program that they come to them for the appropriate add-on?
Apparently not, because they have authorized 3rd parties for such developemment, and have provided with the full package, means for me to produce my own.
They INTEND to prevent third party developers by requiring that you register with them for the "right" to develop programs for their software packages.
They intend to limit the number of parties with access to certain code. For the very same reason you compile code.
You my friend are the one who is obfuscating the issue...if you would but once consider that if Autodesk decided tomorrow that you should not be allowed to do piping (or anything else for that matter) without purchasing their package, then you would understand my position.
But they haven't done so, nor will they. Believe me they understand their market pretty well. Paranoia is fine if they are REALLY out to get you, but this is tilting at smoke.
If I developed a Python interpreter for AutoCAD would THAT be a violation?
Pobably not, unless you scarfed something from AutoDESK to which you had no right. Which is EXACTLY what LTE did.
How about this? When Autodesk finally kills lisp (they have been talking about it for the last 3 releases) will you gladly put away all of your lisp programs?
"They" who? Who has been talking about it for the last 3 releases?? For one of those releases they offered a new, robust interface for lisp. But if they do decide to kill lisp, I will have to put my code away, won't I.
"As Designed" is not a condition in the licensing agreement, and the "boogeyman" in this instance IS Autodesk.
Oh I see, it's okay for you to protect your product, unless you make a lot of money with it.
When I post code, it is there to be modified, to be changed, and made to do things that I did not intend for it to do...
BUT...if I post compiled code I do not intend for people to modify it, decompile it, or change it, however, if they found a way to make it do more than I originally intended, then good for them...
Even if they got access to your code from a member of your program developement team?
LTE and ManuSoft are NOT selling hacked Autodesk programs, they are selling programs that work along side and in concert with Autodesk products. There is a huge difference.
Okay I will concede that I made a poor choice of terms when I used the word "hacked". They did not hack the code (which may be more honest than what they have been accused of doing). What they have allegedly done, after agreeing not to, is use code supplied under an agreement, after the agreement was voided.
Personally, I always thought that AutoDesk marketing LT was a mistake. They were producing a product that competed with themselves.
Autodesk has always held that "registered" third party developers can have free unabated access to their source code, their computers, and their libraries. If I wanted to have access to the code I could pay Autodesk for the right to see that code, I do not, LTE did not, ...
Therein lies the sticky wicket. The writers of LTE allegedly did just that. Under a registered 3rd party developer agreement the writers of LTE were given access to Autodesk proprietary files. At a later date that agreement was terminated. Later still they used that proprietary code to produce LTE. At least that's how AutoDESK framed it in their brief, that company was "redistributing Autodesk proprietary files, copying AutoCAD files to their machines deploying AutoCAD LT, [and] modifying protected Autodesk code."
therefore, if I produce a program that changes the functionality or look of AutoCAD am I in violation of copyright? Using your way of thinking, I would.
Again, for the dozenth time, no. As much as you would like that to be my position, it is not, nor has it ever been. That position would be much easier for you to argue against, so I understand your need for it to be so, but sorry, it isn't.
I'll post an example of what you term "hacking" and "cracking" ... that is nothing more than using Autodesk PUBLISHED and Microsoft PUBLISHED API calls ... stay tuned
Poor choice of terms already conceded above.
-
If 'modifying' AutoCad with 'add ons' is morally wrong then are my 306 customizations (macros) wrong also?
As much as Keith wishes that were my position, it isn't. but I see he has confused the issue enough by saying it often enough that you may believe it to be so. Add-ons are not a problem, never have been. The improper use of proprietary code is.
AutoCadLT doesn't fit our bill as is, so I modify it to do what I need to do.
NO problem at all with that. Unless you use code to which you have no right to do so. Which is what AutoDESk charges the writers of LTE.
As long as the 'add on' programs don't decompile or change the files of AutoCad, I don't understand why it would be morally wrong.
Absolutly correct, and my position all along.
No one can write a software that fits EVERYONES needs, that is why 'add ons' exist. If Autodesk doesnt provide them, why can't someone else?
They still can, I've never claimed otherwise. Unless they use code to which they have no right. Which is what AutoDESk charges the writers of LTE.
-
I suppose then it comes down to the allegations that Autodesk makes that LTE used proprietary code.
I have said often that if LTE DID use Autodesk code, then it would be wrong to sell a product based on that code without approval from Autodesk.
It comes down to whom do you believe ...
LTE, a small company by any standard
ManuSoft (also party to the suit), another small company
Autodesk, a large corporation...
No, being a large company does not make Autodesk bad ... attempting to force compliance with copyright and licensing issues does not make them bad ... however, if LTE and ManuSoft are exhonerated then Autodesk is indeed the bad guy.
Personally, I am still one of those people that holds judgement until an accusation has been proven.
Our system of law has always been based on the presumption of innocence, unfortunately there are those who would burn someone at the stake for merely being accused of wrong-doing.
CADaver, I'll make a deal with you...when and if Autodesk proves their case in court, I'll agree that LTE was wrong, however, if Autodesk cannot prove their case, I'd like you to agree with me that Autodesk was wrong in pursuing this case.
What do you say?
-
I suppose then it comes down to the allegations that Autodesk makes that LTE used proprietary code.
I have said often that if LTE DID use Autodesk code, then it would be wrong to sell a product based on that code without approval from Autodesk.
It comes down to whom do you believe ...
LTE, a small company by any standard
ManuSoft (also party to the suit), another small company
Autodesk, a large corporation...
Nothing I have indicates that Manusoft's products are involved, but rather they played fast and loose with code they shouldn't have. And at this point, I don't think they are involved directly with the suit any longer, though I'm quite sure Owen is watching it closely.
No, being a large company does not make Autodesk bad ... attempting to force compliance with copyright and licensing issues does not make them bad ... however, if LTE and ManuSoft are exhonerated then Autodesk is indeed the bad guy.
See below.
Personally, I am still one of those people that holds judgement until an accusation has been proven. Our system of law has always been based on the presumption of innocence, unfortunately there are those who would burn someone at the stake for merely being accused of wrong-doing.
I agree, but I wouldn't purchase the product until I was sure. But then that's just me.
CADaver, I'll make a deal with you...when and if Autodesk proves their case in court, I'll agree that LTE was wrong, however, if Autodesk cannot prove their case, I'd like you to agree with me that Autodesk was wrong in pursuing this case.
What do you say?
This goes along with that secand paragraph above. If someone feels that they have been wronged in some manner they should be able to seek resolution. That's what the courts are for. Just because the court disagrees with their position, I'm not sure I could say they were wrong in bringing the case.
I was sued by a fellow who thought I had defrauded him of certain monies. When he asked me about it originally, I showed him the contract, and he felt it was worded in a way that supported his position. I did not. We went to court and the judge sided with my interpretation of the contract. Did I think he was wrong bringing the case? No, he was just protecting his interests, as was I.
How about this, if they, AutoDESK, lose the case, I will agree that they lost and retract my unsupport for LTE.
-
Ok fair enough ...
If Autodesk wins, I'll concede that LTE was involved in wrong doing, if Autodesk loses you concede that LTE was not involved in wrong doing.
Presuming of course that you don't draw a distinction between "morally wrong" and "legally wrong" In any case, I'll accept "legally wrong" as the presumed method by which we measure since morals are at best very difficult to legislate and enforce.
-
Ok fair enough ...
If Autodesk wins, I'll concede that LTE was involved in wrong doing, if Autodesk loses you concede that LTE was not involved in wrong doing.
Presuming of course that you don't draw a distinction between "morally wrong" and "legally wrong" In any case, I'll accept "legally wrong" as the presumed method by which we measure since morals are at best very difficult to legislate and enforce.
Agreed...
...
...
okay everybody, you can get up now, fake faints noted.
-
When will we know the outcome?
-
VM ... It could be years... but you can certainly bet that when it finally comes to a close, it will be big news, both on the Autodesk site and LTE.
-
not a bad read for a monday morning!! dang...need more coffee now too :D
-
As a final note, (I hope) -
Please don't look down on those of us that use LT.
I personally have tried to get our owner to at least buy me, (the CAD manager), a copy of FULL AutoCad. He said that he just can't justify spending that much money on it for what we do. - Which is basically an 'electronic pen and paper'. We do very little acutual 'drafting'.
I did a couple of jobs, Drafting a mechanical cabinet, but it was VERY difficult in LT. So I pitched MD or the full AutoCad. He ended up outsourcing the 3D work.
So, bottom line, I don't pay the bills, the owner does. This makes it HIS choice.
craigr
-
As a final note, (I hope) -
Please don't look down on those of us that use LT.
I hope I didn't come across as looking down on LT users. If I did I'm very sorry, that was never my intent. It's just Keith I don't like. :) JUST KIDDING, sparring with Keith is one of the few highpoints of my workweek.
And I dunno about anyone else, but I really enjoy a good spar (surprise, surprise) that does not degenerate into personal slurs. Kinda keeps the few grey cells I have left oiled up.
-
Don't worry, no offense taken.
I'm just jealous that I don't have the full version. :(
Thanks anyway.
craigr
-
....sparring with Keith is one of the few highpoints of my workweek.
And I dunno about anyone else, but I really enjoy a good spar (surprise, surprise) that does not degenerate into personal slurs. Kinda keeps the few grey cells I have left oiled up.
Well, I must say that I find it intellectually stimulating to conduct these sessions as well ... you know debate was one of my favorite subjects in school .... The dean would want to punish me for doing something and we would debate it .... he wins or he wins ... either way I lost ... at least now I don't have a punishment that goes with it ... :)