Topic: Lisp with 2005LT?

[craigr]

Can one use Lisps with 2005LT?

craigr

[Mark]

Not without an add-on.

[MP]

= Links deleted =

[VerticalMojo]

http://www.lt-extender.com/englisch/frameset.htm

[CADaver]

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.

[VerticalMojo]

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 !

[TR]

I think his issue was more of a moral one than a legal one. Which I agree with.

[MP]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[TR]

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.

[Keith™]

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.

[pmvliet]

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

[Keith™]

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.

[ronjonp]

I say tough ... If Autodesk doesn't want users to extend the capabilities of LT, then they should stop selling cars without motors.

   

[hudster]

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?