Author Topic: Lisp with 2005LT?  (Read 11093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oak3s

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2005, 05:58:30 PM »
Quote
Can one use Lisps with 2005LT?
craigr

Yes.

;)

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2005, 06:08:55 PM »
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 ....
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

t-bear

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2005, 09:55:26 PM »
Yo Keith!!!  Well said.....

TR

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2005, 11:47:57 PM »
Agree to disagree?

hudster

  • Gator
  • Posts: 2848
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2005, 04:01:53 AM »
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.
Revit BDS 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, AutoCAD 2017, 2016, Navisworks 2017, 2016, BIM360 Glue

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2005, 08:31:31 AM »
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
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

CADaver

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2005, 01:15:31 PM »
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2005, 02:22:11 PM »
Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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:
Quote

;;;    
;;;    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:
Quote

;;;    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.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: CADaver
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

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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?

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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.
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

CADaver

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2005, 05:13:57 PM »
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
...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.

TR

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2005, 09:37:50 PM »
Quote from: Keith
Quote from: CADaver
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.

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2005, 10:16:42 AM »
Quote from: CADaver
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.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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?

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: CADaver
Personally, I always thought that AutoDesk marketing LT was a mistake.  They were producing a product that competed with themselves.

Quote from: Keith
...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
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

t-bear

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #41 on: February 10, 2005, 12:10:02 PM »
I kin hardlee wate!!!  Sittin heer with "bated breath"  (got cheese in my mouf.......)

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2005, 01:12:06 PM »
Run this app 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.
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

craigr

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2005, 02:17:19 PM »
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

CADaver

  • Guest
Lisp with 2005LT?
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2005, 05:47:46 PM »
Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
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.


Quote from: Keith
"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.

Quote from: Keith
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?

Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: CADaver
Personally, I always thought that AutoDesk marketing LT was a mistake.  They were producing a product that competed with themselves.

Quote from: Keith
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."


Quote from: Keith
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.

Quote from: Keith
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.