TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: Mark on March 11, 2008, 08:17:42 AM
-
"3rd party software" as in [ http://www.drcauto.com/ltfactory/products/lttoolkitmax/index.html ] Toolkit Max 2008.
-
We make all of our customizations and inhancements in house.
Currently we are doing an excel link up to run custom scripts on every layout in a selected set of drawings, should be sweet.
-
The add-ons sound / look nice. But for what we do, I doubt I could justify the $450 on top of LT.
Though admittedly I don't know all that I am missing with the absence of Lisps.
craigr
-
I could be wrong as I haven't looked at an LT EULA lately and lack the drive to do so ATM, but I am pretty sure that at one time anyway, using a third party lisp enabler with LT was a violation of the EULA.
-
From section 3.2.7b of the AutoCAD LT 2008 EULA
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
“Excluded Materials” means any programs, modules, components or functionality, if any, that may be included on media or with materials delivered to You that are not within the License Parameters as described in the User Documentation, or for which You have not paid the applicable fees.
You and your legal counsel can decide for yourselves....
-
I just received my '08 LT upgrade. It specifically states that it is to be installed over a previous version. I decided to install the upgrade on a new computer with no previous installation of ACAD LT. I asked Autodesk if I could do this and they said yes, when I call for the authorization code, they will give me the appropriate code to install as a stand-alone version.
So I guess there is a lot of stuff on the ACAD disk that is "turned on" or "off" and you can reach it only with the proper authorization code.
Bob G.
-
From section 3.2.7b of the AutoCAD LT 2008 EULA
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
“Excluded Materials” means any programs, modules, components or functionality, if any, that may be included on media or with materials delivered to You that are not within the License Parameters as described in the User Documentation, or for which You have not paid the applicable fees.
You and your legal counsel can decide for yourselves....
I am not very good with Legal Talk -
So does this mean I shouldn't be using a 'batch' program? It IS external to my AutoCAD.
craigr
-
I think your batch program would be OK because it is not enabling functionality you didn't pay for
-
Basically, LT is full ACAD with things disabled. Discussing ways to bypass the reduced functionality is basically discussing h4x, cr4cks, and w4r3z. Not a road I think we should be traveling.
-
"Kate?! Oh, Kaaaate!" :)
-
Basically, LT is full ACAD with things disabled. Discussing ways to bypass the reduced functionality is basically discussing h4x, cr4cks, and w4r3z. Not a road I think we should be traveling.
agreed, but commenting on things that should be safe is good for the group and those that dont know any different
-
I don't know how these other applications work, such as the LSP addon, but if they are standalone programs, that merely shoot stuff to the command line (meaning that it only uses what is enabled within the core of LT) then I don't see that as cracking, hacking, or otherwise modifying their product.
-
Josh, if you were to type (setq a 4) on your command line, it would use the lisp engine and set that value. Now if you were to type (read shoot to the command line from external program that is stand alone) the same thing in LT, it will choke and puke. The external programs are (I think) modifing the EXE of LT to enable lisp, thus violating the EULA. OR I cold be completely wrong
-
agreed, but commenting on things that should be safe is good for the group and those that dont know any different
I agree with that. command macros and the like are swell.
I don't know how these other applications work, such as the LSP addon, but if they are standalone programs, that merely shoot stuff to the command line (meaning that it only uses what is enabled within the core of LT) then I don't see that as cracking, hacking, or otherwise modifying their product.
I looked into this some time back and the products that I looked at did not work in this way.
-
Josh, if you were to type (setq a 4) on your command line, it would use the lisp engine and set that value. Now if you were to type (read shoot to the command line from external program that is stand alone) the same thing in LT, it will choke and puke. The external programs are (I think) modifing the EXE of LT to enable lisp, thus violating the EULA. OR I cold be completely wrong
I thought maybe someone had engineered their own LISP engine that would shoot do the LSP work, and then send something to LT that would get it done in LT terms... but if what Bob says is true, then yea, it sounds like a hack.
-
"Kate?! Oh, Kaaaate!" :)
Right now, I know about as much as you guys. :-) Although RK's quote was pretty persuasive. I may be able to speak more authoritatively in a few weeks.
-
These kinds of polls are so easy for me to answer. :-)
-
I am not very good with Legal Talk -
So does this mean I shouldn't be using a 'batch' program? It IS external to my AutoCAD.
craigr
I think my last line sums it up....
Regarding a BAT file, no. I'm pretty sure Autodesk is talking about bypassing the features in LT that prohibit external lisp and ARX from running.
Realistically, I don't think there has ever been a case where Autodesk has went after (and much less tried to prosecute) an end user. They have went after the creators of these add-on's though.
I guess if someone feels comfortable doing it - then so be it.
Personally, If I needed full ACAD in my business, that is the tool I would get.
Let's face it, people are using LT with the add-on to save maybe a couple of thousand...?
A good business plan would include a way to purchase the right tools for the job.
-
'A good business plan would include a way to purchase the right tools for the job'
But I HAVE used the back side of a screwdriver as a hammer before. :)
craigr
-
If you were framing a house, I bet you'd buy a hammer though.
-
Let's face it, people are using LT with the add-on to save maybe a couple of thousand...?
A good business plan would include a way to purchase the right tools for the job.
Yes but if were a couple of million you might think again and most good business plans
include keeping running costs in check!
-
most good business plans also include a high level of legality.
-
Let's face it, people are using LT with the add-on to save maybe a couple of thousand...?
A good business plan would include a way to purchase the right tools for the job.
Yes but if were a couple of million you might think again and most good business plans
include keeping running costs in check!
Couple million? Doubtful. That would have to be at least 650 seats, assuming you don't get any kind of bulk discount.
That's a lot of seats.
-
most good business plans also include a high level of legality.
Suggesting some kind of illegality is reckless.
Image similar restrictions in the Microsoft EULA.
How legal do you think that would be and how much do you think they
would be fined by the EU?
The linking to LT or any other programme for that matter is completely legal and
encouraged under the law. It's what some call progress.
Suggestion that hacking LT to enable some hidden functions is also a fallacy.
There is no lisp hidden in LT. The modern add on product create all of their
functionality from the ground up and simply link to LT to get the job done.
Would you consider linking excel to LT illegal?
-
The modern add on product create all of their
functionality from the ground up and simply link to LT to get the job done.
If that's the case, I see no problem with it. As I stated from the beginning, that isn't my understanding although, as I said, it has been several years since I looked into this subject in any kind of depth. If on the other hand, it isn't the case, then I believe there would be some copyright issues. May well be anyway depending on how it's done although that would be one for the courts to decide.
-
From section 3.2.7b of the AutoCAD LT 2008 EULA
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
“Excluded Materials” means any programs, modules, components or functionality, if any, that may be included on media or with materials delivered to You that are not within the License Parameters as described in the User Documentation, or for which You have not paid the applicable fees.
Yep, that smells about right!
-
If you were framing a house, I bet you'd buy a hammer though.
True! And at a framers salary you could afford to spend $40 on a good hammer. But what if you were a lowly drafter trying to start out on your own, would you have $5000-$8000 to plop down on ONE seat of software?
-
True! And at a framers salary you could afford to spend $40 on a good hammer. But what if you were a lowly drafter trying to start out on your own, would you have $5000-$8000 to plop down on ONE seat of software?
Took me a while to buy my one seat of Autocad (full version).
I bought LT for $600 and used that for four years.
I still didn't have the job requirements that required me to get full version other
then I was teaching at AU and thought, this might be a good thing to have...
Pieter
-
If you were framing a house, I bet you'd buy a hammer though.
True! And at a framers salary you could afford to spend $40 on a good hammer. But what if you were a lowly drafter trying to start out on your own, would you have $5000-$8000 to plop down on ONE seat of software?
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
-
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
I was about to reply, then I scrolled down and read this.
That pretty much sums up what I was going to say!
I participate in another forum made up primarily of professionals in a certain industry.
These members often gripe about how they should be respected as a profession and people should not question their fees. These SAME people are the first to stand up and gripe about the cost of computers and software. It's amazing how some people don't have a problem charging a client big bucks, but spend hours looking for free software....
-
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
I was about to reply, then I scrolled down and read this.
That pretty much sums up what I was going to say!
I participate in another forum made up primarily of professionals in a certain industry.
These members often gripe about how they should be respected as a profession and people should not question their fees. These SAME people are the first to stand up and gripe about the cost of computers and software. It's amazing how some people don't have a problem charging a client big bucks, but spend hours looking for free software....
I guess the question is do you actually own a LT version or a 3rd party app running with it
and do you really know the difference?
If you don't you are assuming that if you spend more money then you are more productive!
Ask the guys running Mech-Q on LT if they are more productive than running with
the full version of Acad.
And with the theme on framing I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
-
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
And with the theme on framing I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
Erm.. lsp? Arx? I've seen it done quite often.
-
I guess the question is do you actually own a LT version
yes or a 3rd party app running with it
noand do you really know the difference?
Yes, I know the difference between LT and a 3rd part app
If you don't you are assuming that if you spend more money then you are more productive!
Has nothing to do with spending money, but I can guarantee that I am more productive with the full versionAsk the guys running Mech-Q on LT if they are more productive than running with
the full version of Acad.
But are they as productive or more productive than someone using a similar vertical in ACAD?
And with the theme on framing I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
I saw something that did that back around '92. I don't doubt that there are very similar things in abundance out there but am not sure, it's not something that I ever need to do. Unless you're trying to say that LT with verticals can do things that ACAD with customization/verticals can't, your examples are as fallacious as Mark's buying a hammer vs. starting a business example.
Let me be perfectly clear here, if my understanding is incorrect, and the use of products like this doesn't violate the EULA, I have absolutely no problem with it at all. If on the other hand it does violate the EULA, I do have a problem with it.
-
If you don't you are assuming that if you spend more money then you are more productive!
Has nothing to do with spending money, but I can guarantee that I am more productive with the full version[/quote]Meant to explain that answer more. I have quite a bit that increases my productivity that is in VBA.
-
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
And with the theme on framing I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
Erm.. lsp? Arx? I've seen it done quite often.
Sure you have now tell us more!
-
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
And with the theme on framing I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
Erm.. lsp? Arx? I've seen it done quite often.
Sure you have now tell us more!
... do you seriously think that it can't be done or that someone hasn't done it already?
Hell, check out our local resident (whom I haven't seen in a while, actually...) DaveW... he has one HELL of an app created for his niche called MillLister... you should SEE what that beast can do. He set me up on a part of his program for some of the solids editing features he includes, and showed me the ropes on a lot of his BOM and cutlist features... it's as automated as a BOM can be using xdata associated with the entities created.
But even stopping short of the beast he developed, there're plenty of BOM automation apps out there for full Autocad using LSP, Arx, vba, whatever I'm sure... it all depends on how much automation you want.
-
If I were a framer who was starting my own company, I would buy a hell of a lot more than a hammer and spend a hell of a lot more than $8k. Starting a business requires capital. Starting a business without sufficient capital is why such an incredibly high percentage of companies fail in the first year.
And with the theme on framing I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
Erm.. lsp? Arx? I've seen it done quite often.
Sure you have now tell us more!
Are you seriously trying to say that LT with a lisp enabler is more powerful than ACAD?
-
Are you seriously trying to say that LT with a lisp enabler is more powerful than ACAD?
Somehow I don't think that you get it.
edit. just fixed a quote tag. Mav
-
Are you seriously trying to say that LT with a lisp enabler is more powerful than ACAD?
Somehow I don't think that you get it.
Then maybe you should explain what it is you actually ARE trying to say?
-
That's why we asked questions.. we're not sure what you're saying, and we're curious.
-
I have seen a framing schedule and cutting list created on LT
with a bom in a blink! Do that in ACAD.
OK, I did it in AutoCad... in half a blink.
Now what?
-
Are you seriously trying to say that LT with a lisp enabler is more powerful than ACAD?
Somehow I don't think that you get it.
edit. just fixed a quote tag. Mav
I believe what Gazza is getting at is that you can do everything you need in LT that you can in AutoCAD but without the price. It's not that it's better in LT. Just that you can do the same thing and it doesn't cost you as much.
-
Are you seriously trying to say that LT with a lisp enabler is more powerful than ACAD?
Somehow I don't think that you get it.
edit. just fixed a quote tag. Mav
I believe what Gazza is getting at is that you can do everything you need in LT that you can in AutoCAD but without the price. It's not that it's better in LT. Just that you can do the same thing and it doesn't cost you as much.
That was what I thought too until his last post. I may be reading him wrong due to the nature of internet text, but it seemed sarcastic to me, as if doubtful that vanilla Autocad doing something that LT-LSP-enabled can is a fallacy.
Just wantin' to know the purpose of the statement, out of curiosity. I'll never be able to downgrade to LT, no matter what enablers they hack my .exe with or what standalone apps are engineered. I have to use too much of the full package. I'm closer to suggesting the purchase of a vertical or separate application than I am to going the other way.
-
I know for me, to go from full to lite would just piss me off. There would be lots of screaming, things being hurled in different directions, and possibly the use of some explatives.
-
Those both sound like an unwillingness to learn something new.
Or maybe LT is a "Bargain Basement" application.
-
Those both sound like an unwillingness to learn something new.
No it's not.
It's unwillingness to handicap all the benefits you once had, and go back to doing it the slower, menial way.
Take the pneumatic nailgun away from the framer and make him stick to only using a hammer.
He'd be pissed... is that because he's just afraid to learn something new?
Also, I wouldn't do it because you can't do 3D in LT. For our structural projects, I don't use an ounce of 2D other than annotation.
-
Those both sound like an unwillingness to learn something new.
Or maybe LT is a "Bargain Basement" application.
Yes, and yes.
Now, go play some chess.
-
This seems to be leaning towards a battle between which is a better program.
Personally, I don't think either is a 'better' program.
They each have their pros & cons.
Price vs. funtionality.
Basically pay for what you need.
Just my opinion,
craigr
-
Now, go play some chess.
Huh...I haven't played for a couple of months now.
-
Me either, too busy working on my deathmatch quota. I was kidding BTW. I kid, I kid.
-
I was kidding BTW. I kid, I kid.
You don't say...
-
I don't think it's a battle of which is a better program... Autocad full is obviously the better program. Whether or not you get a return on the investment on that return is a decision to be made, though... but which program is better, is certainly not a question.
Yes, LT -is- a Bargain Basement program, if you wanna get down to it. It's price is minimal, and it doesn't do nearly the upper-echelon that Autocad Full can do (though many people don't need that stuff... we just happen to)
-
Perhaps I should have said 'a better Choice' instead of 'a better Program'.
For us, LT is a better 'Choice' because of the cost. - We don't need all that the full version offers.
Why buy a 'Craftsman' tool set if a 'Dollar Store' tool set works fine for what you need it for?
Especially if the tool set needs to be replaced every year!
craigr
-
Ok, yea, I'll buy "better choice" over better program. That's definitely true for many people.
I couldn't use LT... we'd take too many steps backwards... and no, Greg, that's not an unwillingness to learn something new. I'm 24, I'm far from "set in my ways" and if anything, I'd welcome the spice to my work-life. I tried to find a way to justify Revit being introduced into our office, but couldn't come up with a sale worth pitching to the bosses. It just wasn't good enough for our situation. Or maybe our situation wasn't right for what Revit was for, I should say.
-
I refuse to work on LT. Period. If I'm working on LT, then that means my job as a drafter must not be that important, or the company is so cheap I wouldn't want to work for them anyways. The guys that use LT in our office aren't "CAD Designers" but Project Managers that use LT when needed to add notes or dimensions when they need to take control of the drawing for quality control purposes.
Funny this topic is here because I just posted up asking about 3rd Party LT Add-on's for six guys who run LT in my office. Seems to be in violation to the EULA. Had the LT Extender Trial on one guys machine and it worked flawlessly with some of our LISP programs. It literally enabled just about everything that Lisp/VBA had to offer. Such is the choice to work on an illegal software license.... :?
My boss kept asking,"Is it legal? Does is break any of the EULA?" Well I guess I have my answer, via McSwain. :mrgreen:
-
LT use to be more affordable. I think it currently runs close to $1k.
full autocad was about $3600 with 1 year subscription. subscription is about $500/year
The price gap is getting closer.
I've run both LT and full version and have 1 license of each.
I've also seen and worked in many different types of offices with all types of personnel.
There is a place for both options. There are many companies and users who do not
take advantage of a full version and could save lots of money with LT.
There are many companies and users who require the full version.
LT is just a stripped down version of the full blown thing. There use to be things in LT
that were not in the full version (not sure about now). 3D and customization (lisp, vba etc)
are not in LT natively. Yes, there are add-on's but it seems there legality is questionable...
It's like buying a 1-ton 4x4 fully loaded truck or a 1/2-ton 4x2 truck with no options.
They do majority of the same thing. One can haul more, more comfortable.
One is cheaper, hauls less and doesn't have the creature comforts....
Pieter
-
I agree, but I also see a growing need for inexpensive CAD programs that might not have all the bells and whistles, but are customizable. I think the clones will soon start to eat away at Autodesk’s market share.
I’ve been doing quite a bit of research in the clones over the last few weeks, and they are putting a lot of effort into making quality programs with quality API’s. It’s going to take a while, but they will get there.
So far the best clone as far as performance goes is ZWCAD http://www.zwcad.org/
And the best API goes to Bricscad http://www.bricscad.com/en_INTL/
Don’t get me wrong, I think AutoCAD rocks, but the price is getting too high for some of the smaller time players.
-
I refuse to work on LT. Period. If I'm working on LT, then that means my job as a drafter must not be that important, or the company is so cheap I wouldn't want to work for them anyways. The guys that use LT in our office aren't "CAD Designers" but Project Managers that use LT when needed to add notes or dimensions when they need to take control of the drawing for quality control purposes.
Funny this topic is here because I just posted up asking about 3rd Party LT Add-on's for six guys who run LT in my office. Seems to be in violation to the EULA. Had the LT Extender Trial on one guys machine and it worked flawlessly with some of our LISP programs. It literally enabled just about everything that Lisp/VBA had to offer. Such is the choice to work on an illegal software license.... :?
My boss kept asking,"Is it legal? Does is break any of the EULA?" Well I guess I have my answer, via McSwain. :mrgreen:
Your Choice but get your facts right before you give the answer to your boss.
First the posting part of the EULA here is a breach of Copyright. That's right the EULA
is covered by copyright.
LTextender were taken to a German court by AD for an entirely different reason.
At the time that were inciting people to download a full version (trail) and then they would
use those DLL. Once they stopped doing this the case fizzled away and they where paid
hush money. Hence they still exist today.
So how does that make it illegal and what part of the EULA do you think it breaks?
-
First the posting part of the EULA here is a breach of Copyright. That's right the EULA
is covered by copyright.
The posting of the section of the EULA would fall under fair use and as such is not a copyright violation.
LTextender were taken to a German court by AD for an entirely different reason.
At the time that were inciting people to download a full version (trail) and then they would
use those DLL. Once they stopped doing this the case fizzled away and they where paid
hush money. Hence they still exist today.
So how does that make it illegal and what part of the EULA do you think it breaks?
If you would quit being so defensive and actually offer some information this topic might get somewhere. Maybe you could enlighten us on how the connection is made, and what they coded. I have a really hard time believing that a software package that was made to enhance LT, and that sells cheaply, took the time, expense, and effort, to rewrite the functionality of Autolisp and the handling of ARX. I would be a lot more inclined to believe that they used code from Autodesk.
-
LTextender were taken to a German court by AD for an entirely different reason.
At the time that were inciting people to download a full version (trail) and then they would
use those DLL. Once they stopped doing this the case fizzled away and they where paid
hush money. Hence they still exist today.
And yet, they haven't upated since 2004. I wonder why.
quote]
So how does that make it illegal and what part of the EULA do you think it breaks?
[/quote]Bolding mine
From LT-Extender documentationLT-Extender 2000 Plus for AutoCAD© LT 2000 (or higher) is the most advanced software for customising
AutoCAD© LT. Using several advanced technologies, LT-Extender 2000 Plus offers the unique power to
break through (nearly) all AutoCAD© LT limitations – activating and enabling hidden features, emulating nonexisting
features and providing easy-to-use interface, users will get AutoCAD© power running AutoCAD© LT !
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
Now maybe you can enlighten us on how this doesn't violate the EULA.
-
IMHO - Bob, you should have posted that sooner.
That pretty much sums it up - dosen't it?
craigr
-
My boss and I are discussing this issue today, we will see what he decides. I will be showing him this thread. ;-)
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
Could you then provide something credible other than your vague and defensive statements so that we can LEARN something?
We're not trying to attack you, we're trying to find the truth. Are you here to just raise a fuss, or actually provide some information?
-
Current from their website, main page, bottom:
Users will take advantage of LT-Extender 2000 Plus in several ways:
* all important, but missing AutoCAD commands, which are normaly missing with AutoCAD LT, are provided by LT-Extender
* Arx-/Lisp applications may be loaded and run: therefore, users can run "Third-Party"-applications (designed for AutoCAD) even with LT
* the feature to automatically load Arx-/Lisp applications allows to have commonly used applications loaded with LT startup
* 'LayerTools' integrated : offers effective and elegant LayerControl using reference entities
* Drawings created in AutoCAD can be opened and edited in LT now, without "Proxies" being displayed (important for Plotting those drawings !)
Sounds like the same thing to me
Another link of note: http://www.lt-extender.com/LT-Extender/englisch/inhalte/ueberblick/content.htm
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you, and trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you could consider rewarding their good faith by laying off the rhetoric and providing some actual information to support your claims. For that matter, how about explaining exactly what your claims are.
I still haven't figure out what point you are trying to make. It sounded, at one point, as if you were making the claim that LT with a programming API enabler could do things that full-blown AutoCAD can't do, or at least do the same things better or more quickly. Are you making that claim? Can we set aside the licensing issue for a moment, and just answer that question.
-
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you!
I did not realise that this was a club that you need to pass some kind of test!
:-(
-
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you!
I did not realise that this was a club that you need to pass some kind of test!
:-(
This is basic social interaction... not a test.
-
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you!
I did not realise that this was a club that you need to pass some kind of test!
:-(
It's not, but just like in real life, if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, you have to establish some credibility.
You still haven't answered any of my questions, and I'm pretty much done waiting for you to make your point. I have better things to do. Have a nice life.
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
While watching this discussion, it appears that he has no valid arguemnt. And as mentioned, just wants to create a fuss.
If one does has a valid point to make, they are always willing to back it up with facts.
IMHO,
craigr
-
To add to Bob's suspicions, I often find that when one is so secretive of their point, it's usually quite fragile, and easily disproved. Otherwise there's no reason for secrecy.
-
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you!
I did not realise that this was a club that you need to pass some kind of test!
:-(
Now where did you get that from? A request has been made numerous times.
Information has been posted that you disputed. Nothing wrong with that, but people are asking you to back up your statements.
-
http://www.manusoft.com/Software/LTX/PR/LTX031023.htm
-
To add to Bob's suspicions, I often find that when one is so secretive of their point, it's usually quite fragile, and easily disproved. Otherwise there's no reason for secrecy.
I once had a fortune cookie that said "An honest man tells no secrets" or something to that affect.
-
http://www.manusoft.com/Software/LTX/PR/LTX031023.htm
. LTX does not "enable" hidden or disabled functionality in AutoCAD LT, nor does it modify AutoCAD LT files. LTX on its own does not extend the functionality of LT at all. Rather, LTX provides the functionality required by third party ARX applications to run on the AutoCAD LT platform the same way they run on the AutoCAD platform. LTX is not licensed directly to end users, but to developers of AutoCAD add-ons who wish to provide support for their customers that use AutoCAD LT. The licensing process is also a vetting process during which we take steps to ensure that LTX is used only for the purposes for which it was intended, and in ways that do not violate contractual obligations to Autodesk or other parties.
Completely and utterly contradictory to this, however:
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
This, however could be the catch:
In the United States, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, section 1201(f) explicitly permits a person to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs," and for that person to "develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure" for the purpose of "enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs." The information and means developed for these purposes may be made available to others if it is provided "solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs." Similar provisions exist in copyright laws in other developed countries throughout the world.
However, being able to use LSP, model 3d, etc etc... is not a form of interoperability, I would think... or is it?
-
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you!
I did not realise that this was a club that you need to pass some kind of test!
:-(
I am now tongueless.
:-P
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
While watching this discussion, it appears that he has no valid argument. And as mentioned, just wants to create a fuss.
If one does has a valid point to make, they are always willing to back it up with facts.
IMHO,
craigr
What fact do you require?
I have already posted here more facts than this group can
absorb in a short space of time.
-
I can absorb :)
-
Not exactly a "people person" are you?
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
While watching this discussion, it appears that he has no valid argument. And as mentioned, just wants to create a fuss.
If one does has a valid point to make, they are always willing to back it up with facts.
IMHO,
craigr
What fact do you require?
I have already posted here more facts than this group can
absorb in a short space of time.
You've posted nothing but empty statements that you fail to backup with credible sources. All you've done is flap your virtual gums with no substance.
-
I guess the only real way to answer the EULA question is to contact AD, and ASK THEM, because obviously, this is the question under the gun right now. The snide comments made from a certain poster are just opinions, and you know that opinions are like a$$^ol#s, everybodies got one.
In lew directly quoting Mr. Wengerd, his summation courtesy of Daniel puts things in a better perspective:
Indirect quote:
The internet is great for diligent researchers to find supported information, but also subject to legal advise by people who think they know what they're talking about.
It is kind of an obvious statement, but sometimes things need clarification.
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
-
So I wonder....
Is the price for LT getting closer to the price for the full version because of the 3rd part add-ons?
Will AutoDesk eventually quit with the LT product due to the 3rd part add-ons?
I know it is a stretch, but maybe worth thinking about.
I know that I would be frustrated if I made the two products & found that someone was circumventing my less expensive product to give it the abilities of my more expensive product.
Would Microsoft allow this?
craigr
-
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
True, but sometimes people just care about the $ signs... or have delusions that they're somehow "sticking it to the man" and self-justify themselves in whatever they do.
-
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
True, but sometimes people just care about the $ signs...
sorta like Adesk?
-
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
True, but sometimes people just care about the $ signs...
sorta like Adesk?
It's their product to sell. They gotta make money to pay their employees. What if your company suddenly decided to not charge enough to cover expenses or ensure longevity?
-
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
True, but sometimes people just care about the $ signs...
sorta like Adesk?
They gotta make money to pay their employees.
exactly!
-
If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
<applause>
Well put.
-
If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, more and more people don't believe that way.
The world has turned into 'ME FIRST' 'Right or wrong is for ME to determine'. Or 'It's not illegal if I don't get caught'.
Of course, I do not mean to point fingers at anyone particular. Just stating my opinion of society.
craigr
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
My integrity is not dependant upon anyone else's in any way.
-
Is the price for LT getting closer to the price for the full version because of the 3rd part add-ons?
Will AutoDesk eventually quit with the LT product due to the 3rd part add-ons?
I know it is a stretch, but maybe worth thinking about.
That is a good point. If LT is about $1k and these add-ons are roughly $500.
You are at half the cost of a full version...
Attend Any AU and there will be talk amongst groups about the life expectancy for vanilla Autocad as well...
In a way it's all relative. If they don't provide an entry level system, they will loose market share.
Users will go to Datacad or some of the cheaper or free systems. Once someone or a company
makes a decision, it is much harder to get them to switch, especially vendors of this nature.
It's hard to know unless we talk to AutoDesk directly on the legalness and ethics of using these add-ons.
I know when LT first came out back during r12 days (seems about right)
there was much todo about these add-ons. Today, there doesn't seem to be much anymore...
Kind of fizzled out.
Pieter
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
So I guess the thief is the innocent because you didn't put bars on your windows?
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
So I guess the thief is the innocent because you didn't put bars on your windows?
Sorry, does not compute! :)
-
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
Which way is cheaper?
-
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
Which way is cheaper?
For the consumer or manufacturer?
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
So I guess the thief is the innocent because you didn't put bars on your windows?
Sorry, does not compute! :)
Autodesk is the homeowner. A law is passed that says a person cannot break into their home. Criminal breaks into the home because he believes the law is stupid.
You spoke negatively of Autodesk creating a legally binding document that states that the user is to not do something, rather than changing the software to disallow the user to circumvent their document's mandates.
Thus I equate it to a homeowner relying on the law of breaking and entering, but being scolded because they did not change their house to make it unable to break in to.
-
Instead, the perp uses one of those long, grabby bar things to reach in through the window and grab what they want. :)
-
Instead, the perp uses one of those long, grabby bar things to reach in through the window and grab what they want. :)
haha I could see it now... one of those gator-claw things like grandma uses to reach the stuff on the top shelf of the cabinet... but big enough for a plasma TV
-
Yeah, a LISP enabling Gator-Claw. :)
-
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
Which way is cheaper?
For the consumer or manufacturer?
Manufacturer of course...
-
So I wonder....
Is the price for LT getting closer to the price for the full version because of the 3rd party add-ons?
No, it's inflation, and LT getting more features. We get fields in this next version, and the action recorder...
Will AutoDesk eventually quit with the LT product due to the 3rd party add-ons?
Never -- it's waaaaay too big a market.
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.
C'mon, Mark, you know that as soon as they build a more secure program, some one else will build a better hacker... :|
-
I'm done with this thread for three reasons
1) Mark's uncommonly irrational "because if the world ran like I wished" arguments
2) Gazza's repeated failure to cite anything whatsoever and limiting his points to "nuh-uh, you're wrong."
3) the most important one, Randy said something that I agreed with completely and didn't annoy me.
The first two make the discussion completely pointless because one side is trying to ascertain facts and the other is banking entirely on emotions, and the third just makes me feel queasy.
As far as I'm concerned, at this point, the burden of proof as to the legality rests on the pro-hack side. In the mean time, to me these programs are illegal hacks and I hope that the swamp doesn't start going down that road. Either that or I hope the Swamp puts up some space for mp3 sharing.
-
:-D :-D
-
I'm done with this thread for three reasons
1) Mark's uncommonly irrational "because if the world ran like I wished" arguments
2) Gazza's repeated failure to cite anything whatsoever and limiting his points to "nuh-uh, you're wrong."
3) the most important one, Randy said something that I agreed with completely and didn't annoy me.
The first two make the discussion completely pointless because one side is trying to ascertain facts and the other is banking entirely on emotions, and the third just makes me feel queasy.
As far as I'm concerned, at this point, the burden of proof as to the legality rests on the pro-hack side. In the mean time, to me these programs are illegal hacks and I hope that the swamp doesn't start going down that road. Either that or I hope the Swamp puts up some space for mp3 sharing.
Why tell us you are done with a thread and insult people in the process?
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Amen.
If you pulled up to a gas station and the pump was somehow messed up and allowed you pump all the gas you wanted for free - would you do it just because you COULD?
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Amen.
If you pulled up to a gas station and the pump was somehow messed up and allowed you pump all the gas you wanted for free - would you do it just because you COULD?
MANY people would!!!
I would not, I was taught better. MANY people were not.
craigr
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Amen.
If you pulled up to a gas station and the pump was somehow messed up and allowed you pump all the gas you wanted for free - would you do it just because you COULD?
I swear officer, I don't know how that valve got busted open! It was just coincidence I had all these 55 gallon drums in my truck and I didn't want to the gas to just go to WASTE... ya know?
-
MANY people would!!!
I would not, I was taught better. MANY people were not.
craigr
Same here.
Just making the point of CADaver's statement "Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do."
-
3) the most important one, Randy said something that I agreed with completely and didn't annoy me.
...
and the third just makes me feel queasy.
Sorry Bob, I'll try harder next time.
-
I'm done with this thread for three reasons
1) Mark's uncommonly irrational "because if the world ran like I wished" arguments
2) Gazza's repeated failure to cite anything whatsoever and limiting his points to "nuh-uh, you're wrong."
3) the most important one, Randy said something that I agreed with completely and didn't annoy me.
The first two make the discussion completely pointless because one side is trying to ascertain facts and the other is banking entirely on emotions, and the third just makes me feel queasy.
As far as I'm concerned, at this point, the burden of proof as to the legality rests on the pro-hack side. In the mean time, to me these programs are illegal hacks and I hope that the swamp doesn't start going down that road. Either that or I hope the Swamp puts up some space for mp3 sharing.
Why tell us you are done with a thread and insult people in the process?
I said that I was done with it because I was one of the main posters in the thread and the discussion was too one sided to continue. I thought that giving my reasons for stopping repeating the same things in different words was the courteous thing to do.
I don't think that I insulted anyone except Randy and I'm pretty sure by his response that he recognized the tongue in cheek nature of it. Marks posts are in my opinion, as I described them. It seems like he is making an effort to justify something that he knows is shady. Gazza hasn't cited a single one of his points. Read the thread again, all he has done is told people they are wrong without offering a single fact to the contrary. I even posted a quote from the documentation of one of these products and he told me I was wrong and that it was an old site, without bothering to give the new site. When I googled it this morning, that appeared to be the most likely URL for LT-Extender.
[Edit]
Paragraph removed to make management happier
[/edit]
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Amen.
If you pulled up to a gas station and the pump was somehow messed up and allowed you pump all the gas you wanted for free - would you do it just because you COULD?
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
You gas analogy could be turned on you when the manufacture tells you that you
can only use the gas in your mower. The same gas for the car will be $2.00 extra
and if you put the mower gas in the car you are breaking the law.
LTX from Owen W has been around for a long time and many of his apps are available on LT.
He is well respected in the industry.
He participates and is invited to the AD Cad University does that make him a hack doing
something illegal. I don't think so.
-
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
You misunderstood the context of that analogy. I was specifically talking about CADaver's statement -> "Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do."
It's already been said... LT was designed as a crippled version of full AutoCAD. It's lower cost reflects that. The full capability of AutoCAD is available (as AutoCAD).
If you purchase LT with the goal of enabling the crippled content, how is this any different than say, hacking some time trial software so that it runs forever?
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
Amen.
If you pulled up to a gas station and the pump was somehow messed up and allowed you pump all the gas you wanted for free - would you do it just because you COULD?
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
You gas analogy could be turned on you when the manufacture tells you that you
can only use the gas in your mower. The same gas for the car will be $2.00 extra
and if you put the mower gas in the car you are breaking the law.
LTX from Owen W has been around for a long time and many of his apps are available on LT.
He is well respected in the industry.
He participates and is invited to the AD Cad University does that make him a hack doing
something illegal. I don't think so.
The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round... 'round and 'round... 'round and 'round... the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round... all through the town.
-
You know when you're doing a 'custom' installation of some big software and you check off the items you want to have installed and uncheck the items you don't? It would be nice if you could pay for AutoCAD based on those items. I realize that would be a nightmare for billing, etc. but still, it would be nice.
Similarly, I've always thought the same about cable tv service. I wish I could pay for the 7 or 8 channels I watch and NOT for the 30 other ones that I don't.
-
You know when you're doing a 'custom' installation of some big software and you check off the items you want to have installed and uncheck the items you don't? It would be nice if you could pay for AutoCAD based on those items. I realize that would be a nightmare for billing, etc. but still, it would be nice.
Similarly, I've always thought the same about cable tv service. I wish I could pay for the 7 or 8 channels I watch and NOT for the 30 other ones that I don't.
That would be pretty sweet. Of course it would be a billing nightmare, because you can always go back and install components you didn't, at first, and then you're sending invoices out more than once a year and... yea... that would be a nightmare for the number of customers they have. Would be cool too... ESPECIALLY for TV.
-
You know when you're doing a 'custom' installation of some big software and you check off the items you want to have installed and uncheck the items you don't? It would be nice if you could pay for AutoCAD based on those items. I realize that would be a nightmare for billing, etc. but still, it would be nice.
Similarly, I've always thought the same about cable tv service. I wish I could pay for the 7 or 8 channels I watch and NOT for the 30 other ones that I don't.
That would be pretty sweet. Of course it would be a billing nightmare, because you can always go back and install components you didn't, at first, and then you're sending invoices out more than once a year and... yea... that would be a nightmare for the number of customers they have. Would be cool too... ESPECIALLY for TV.
I guess I meant more like it would be nice if you could 'build' your AutoCAD before it's shipped to you like you can do when 'building' a Dell. "Ok, I want this, this, this and this. I don't need all that other stuff."
-
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
You gas analogy could be turned on you when the manufacture tells you that you
can only use the gas in your mower. The same gas for the car will be $2.00 extra
and if you put the mower gas in the car you are breaking the law.
Well if the manufacturer has an EULA that says you can only use their gas in a mower, then it would be breaking the law. Because it's the manufacturer's gas, and they are providing you their product/service under their own specific conditions. Same as LT. RK quoted the EULA that specifically states you cannot enable the disabled portions of this particular software. How you are skewing the context of that contract is beyond me. You are simply locked in to the thought that it's not wrong, no matter what the contract says for the use of LT. :ugly:
-
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
You gas analogy could be turned on you when the manufacture tells you that you
can only use the gas in your mower. The same gas for the car will be $2.00 extra
and if you put the mower gas in the car you are breaking the law.
Well if the manufacturer has an EULA that says you can only use their gas in a mower, then it would be breaking the law. Because it's the manufacturer's gas, and they are providing you their product/service under their own specific conditions. Same as LT. RK quoted the EULA that specifically states you cannot enable the disabled portions of this particular software. How you are skewing the context of that contract is beyond me. You are simply locked in to the thought that it's not wrong, no matter what the contract says for the use of LT. :ugly:
And if you don't challenge anything you will become a Moron!
-
This whole thread is a challenge.
-
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
I've made no claims to the legality of the activity in any way. You and I both know the intent of LT was to provide a less robust tool at a less robust price. Autodesk complied with customer wishes in this direction. If you wish the features of the full version, then buy the full version.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
The EULA has been posted several times.
LTX from Owen W has been around for a long time and many of his apps are available on LT.
But even Owen stopped upgrading his LTX in the US at version 3.3, and has, instead of tracking that particular legal battle, chosen to engage in fighting Autodesk of the use of the DWG format. While he is a respected programmer, his affiliation with Autodesk is, at the very best, estranged.
-
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
You gas analogy could be turned on you when the manufacture tells you that you
can only use the gas in your mower. The same gas for the car will be $2.00 extra
and if you put the mower gas in the car you are breaking the law.
Well if the manufacturer has an EULA that says you can only use their gas in a mower, then it would be breaking the law. Because it's the manufacturer's gas, and they are providing you their product/service under their own specific conditions. Same as LT. RK quoted the EULA that specifically states you cannot enable the disabled portions of this particular software. How you are skewing the context of that contract is beyond me. You are simply locked in to the thought that it's not wrong, no matter what the contract says for the use of LT. :ugly:
And if you don't challenge anything you will become a Moron!
And sometimes you are, even when you do....
-
That is a less than a convincing analogy.
It assumes that someone is stealing something or breaking the law in someway.
No one here has be able to prove to me that if I use one of these product that I am
in fact doing anything other that making my life easier.
You gas analogy could be turned on you when the manufacture tells you that you
can only use the gas in your mower. The same gas for the car will be $2.00 extra
and if you put the mower gas in the car you are breaking the law.
Well if the manufacturer has an EULA that says you can only use their gas in a mower, then it would be breaking the law. Because it's the manufacturer's gas, and they are providing you their product/service under their own specific conditions. Same as LT. RK quoted the EULA that specifically states you cannot enable the disabled portions of this particular software. How you are skewing the context of that contract is beyond me. You are simply locked in to the thought that it's not wrong, no matter what the contract says for the use of LT. :ugly:
And if you don't challenge anything you will become a Moron!
That is... somewhat true... in a way... a bit... ok well, I get your point, and I agree, that to not challenge things is lame. However... to think that just because you challenge, that you are entitled to victory makes for the bigger fool.
-
If you wish the features of the full version, then buy the full version.
Exactly. This is the right thing to do. No matter how you look at it. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
-
And if you don't challenge anything you will become a Moron!
Even so you must still follow the law.
-
If you wish the features of the full version, then buy the full version.
Exactly. This is the right thing to do. No matter how you look at it. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
The right thing to do is follow your own dream!
-
If you wish the features of the full version, then buy the full version.
Exactly. This is the right thing to do. No matter how you look at it. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
The right thing to do is follow your own dream!
I would get into a lot of trouble if I followed all of my dreams.
It's another way of saying, "No, that's not the right thing to do."
-
If you wish the features of the full version, then buy the full version.
Exactly. This is the right thing to do. No matter how you look at it. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
The right thing to do is follow your own dream!
:lmao:
I want to have my way with Angelina Jolie, but something tells me it's not the "right" thing to do if there ends up being a restraining order involved!!
I'm starting to see why he got banned
-
The right thing to do is follow your own dream!
You seem familiar. (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2196):? :-D
-
The right thing to do is follow your own dream!
You seem familiar. (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2196):? :-D
haha, I knew where that link went before I even clicked it.
-
If you wish the features of the full version, then buy the full version.
Exactly. This is the right thing to do. No matter how you look at it. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.
The right thing to do is follow your own dream!
Without regard to the dreams of others?
-
I guess I meant more like it would be nice if you could 'build' your AutoCAD before it's shipped to you like you can do when 'building' a Dell. "Ok, I want this, this, this and this. I don't need all that other stuff."
If they did that, then there would be a new thread here about how to unlock the portions of AutoCAD that you did not purchase... :-)
-
I guess I meant more like it would be nice if you could 'build' your AutoCAD before it's shipped to you like you can do when 'building' a Dell. "Ok, I want this, this, this and this. I don't need all that other stuff."
If they did that, then there would be a new thread here about how to unlock the portions of AutoCAD that you did not purchase... :-)
touche!
-
I guess I meant more like it would be nice if you could 'build' your AutoCAD before it's shipped to you like you can do when 'building' a Dell. "Ok, I want this, this, this and this. I don't need all that other stuff."
If they did that, then there would be a new thread here about how to unlock the portions of AutoCAD that you did not purchase... :-)
touche!
Mamma, he touche'd me!!! ... oops wrong forum...
-
Not exactly a "people person" are you?
Well yes I am!
This is serious debate about an issue affecting us all.
What has it to do with anything personal?
Rather than attack me add to the debate!
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
What on earth are you talking about!
You do not have a clue about what is crippled!
The true store nothing is crippled so there is no integrity issue!
-
Not exactly a "people person" are you?
Well yes I am!
This is serious debate about an issue affecting us all.
What has it to do with anything personal?
Rather than attack me add to the debate!
Alright.
First of all, I wouldn't say I was attacking you. I was basically expressing my opinion that, for a newcomer to this community, you've bordered on offending some of the longstanding members, seeming to say that if their opinions don't match yours, that they're wrong. Just an observation, that's all. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I have seen so far.
Now, to the whole LT thing. I happen to agree with everything CADaver said. I often do, and then again, I often don't. One thing however, is that I have the utmost respect for Randy. Anyway, I too believe that LT is a product that Autodesk offers as a cheaper alternative to their full blown AutoCAD, to their customers who A) don't need / use all aspects of AutoCAD and B) perhaps can't afford the full blown version.
I was thinking about this debate in the car the other day. I was thinking that it would be "A" human nature to want to get all you could while parting with the least amount of your money as possible. Look at taxes. Collectively, we expect our taxes to pay for and provide many many services, but when income tax time comes, we do our darndest to try and get the maximum amount returned. Most of us use only the legal loopholes that we know of, but others will go beyond that and lie, cheat and basically steal to get more. The law tells us what is legal and what is not. For AutoCAD LT, the EULA tells us what is legal and what is not. You paid "X" amount into the product, therefore, you are limited to what the developers intended. If the EULA says that you can write your own software or use some other third party software to squeeze every last bit of functionality out of LT, then by all means, squeeze away. Just like the taxes... If the law says that it's legal to do... 'whatever' to get more money back from the government, then why not?! It's when those boundaries are crossed that it becomes an issue.
I haven't read the whole EULA but that's what I would base my actions on. If it's legal to use 3rd party software to extend LT's capabilities, then I would do it. If not, I wouldn't.
-
Not exactly a "people person" are you?
Well yes I am!
This is serious debate about an issue affecting us all.
What has it to do with anything personal?
Rather than attack me add to the debate!
Rather than hollowly contradict everything... why can't you simply explain your statements... provide links... PROVE our statements wrong, and hopefully enlighten us in the mean time, rather than just bickering.
We, here, mostly love a good argument, but the reason we would argue is only to gain a better understanding of every side of the issue, and hopefully become more educated because of it, and either find a "better way" or possibly just maintain the same opinion but come upon a stronger resolve founded on new and increasing reasons and support.
Key is: you need support to your statements or you risk looking like quite a fool.
I say the general consensus seems to be that the risk has been taken.
-
Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets. Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal. If you need the full function software, buy it.
Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.
What on earth are you talking about!
You first.
You do not have a clue about what is crippled!
Actually, I do
The true store nothing is crippled so there is no integrity issue!
Ya' wanna re-phrase that in English, please?
Portions of the full-featured software were locked (crippled) to produce the LT version of the application. Certain individuals (with contractually controlled developer knowledge) chose to develop methods to circumvent those locks to provide the features. IMMHO, doing so was/is unethical and unscrupulous, as is using those applications.
-
Now, to the whole LT thing. I happen to agree with everything CADaver said. I often do, and then again, I often don't. One thing however, is that I have the utmost respect for Randy. Anyway, I too believe that LT is a product that Autodesk offers as a cheaper alternative to their full blown AutoCAD, to their customers who A) don't need / use all aspects of AutoCAD and B) perhaps can't afford the full blown version.
This debate is as much about whether the wording in the EULA is legal or not.
Microsoft lost a similar argument in the courts over the extended use of excel.
The courts found that if the DLL's are there then it is perfect legal to use them
and it is the Authors responsibility to remove functionality not merely cripple it.
This is not the case with LT they have removed the functionality. Contrary to what others
might post here.
This is why they changed the name from aclt.exe to acadlt.exe.
There are plenty of third party apps running on LT a couple of examples:
http://www.manusoft.com/software/index.stm
http://www.cadlogic.com/ltarchitect/index.htm
http://www.pendean.com/pdproducts.htm
I run Accurrender on LT I also run Excel are these features crippled in LT?
Is Owen lacking in integrity because he provides his product range for LT?
Although I may be in a minority in this debate in the real world the AuotCad user is
in Minority to its smaller cousin.
-
Portions of the full-featured software were locked (crippled) to produce the LT version of the application. Certain individuals (with contractually controlled developer knowledge) chose to develop methods to circumvent those locks to provide the features. IMMHO, doing so was/is unethical and unscrupulous, as is using those applications.
I have no idea where you pulled this one from. Perhaps a work of fiction from your dealer!
If that were the case then AD would be fully in their rights under these so called contracts to sue
these certain individuals and I am sure they would have. Then we know about it on Owen's blog
along with the Vernon case.
-
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
While watching this discussion, it appears that he has no valid arguemnt. And as mentioned, just wants to create a fuss.
If one does has a valid point to make, they are always willing to back it up with facts.
IMHO,
craigr
Here is a fact for you!
Lt Extender is alive and well it just lives under another name!
http://www.globalcad.com/products/toolboxlt.htm
-
Portions of the full-featured software were locked (crippled) to produce the LT version of the application. Certain individuals (with contractually controlled developer knowledge) chose to develop methods to circumvent those locks to provide the features. IMMHO, doing so was/is unethical and unscrupulous, as is using those applications.
I have no idea where you pulled this one from. Perhaps a work of fiction from your dealer!
I got it from first from Evan Yares, then from Owen Wengerd, but maybe they were confused.
If that were the case then AD would be fully in their rights under these so called contracts to sue
these certain individuals and I am sure they would have.
They did.
Then we know about it on Owen's blog along with the Vernon case.
The Vernon case has NOTHING at all to do with extending AutoCAD LT. Keep your windmills straight will ya'. And oh by the way, Owen will tell ONLY what helps his position, nothing more.
-
This debate is as much about whether the wording in the EULA is legal or not.
Then have THAT discussion.
The courts found that if the DLL's are there then it is perfect legal to use them and it is the Authors responsibility to remove functionality not merely cripple it.
hmmm... hacking locks is now legal? Gee, who knew?
There are plenty of third party apps running on LT
Yes, and most of them are quite legitimate.
I run Accurrender on LT I also run Excel are these features crippled in LT?
no
Is Owen lacking in integrity because he provides his product range for LT?
Not if he abides by the rules.
Although I may be in a minority in this debate in the real world the AuotCad user is in Minority to its smaller cousin.
Care to post some supporting data for that opinion??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You do realize where this is headed for Autodesk, right? If the LT-Extenders begin to eat into their profits in any real way, LT will become more expensive to offset that loss. Then there will be no advantage to buying LT plus an extender over the full featured application. Autodesk didn't get where it is by accident.
-
I got it from first from Evan Yares, then from Owen Wengerd, but maybe they were confused.
Maybe you are confused these are both friend of mine!
-
You do realize where this is headed for Autodesk, right? If the LT-Extenders begin to eat into their profits in any real way, LT will become more expensive to offset that loss. Then there will be no advantage to buying LT plus an extender over the full featured application. Autodesk didn't get where it is by accident.
Yeah! What he said!
:-D
-
I got it from first from Evan Yares, then from Owen Wengerd, but maybe they were confused.
Maybe you are confused these are both friend of mine!
Then why don't you know the history of the LT extender issues much better than you seem to?
-
I think he DOES know more of the story, but it's the bad part and he's leaving that bit out on purpose.
-
You do realize where this is headed for Autodesk, right? If the LT-Extenders begin to eat into their profits in any real way, LT will become more expensive to offset that loss. Then there will be no advantage to buying LT plus an extender over the full featured application. Autodesk didn't get where it is by accident.
Yeah! What he said!
:-D
If you don't have anyting better to respond then give it miss!
-
Easy tiger, just because I'm not as negative as you doesn't make it wrong.
-
You do realize where this is headed for Autodesk, right? If the LT-Extenders begin to eat into their profits in any real way, LT will become more expensive to offset that loss. Then there will be no advantage to buying LT plus an extender over the full featured application. Autodesk didn't get where it is by accident.
Yeah! What he said!
:-D
If you don't have anyting better to respond then give it miss!
LT XTNDR IS SRS BSNS!!
-
Yawn. Wow you guys still at it? :|
-
Easy tiger, just because I'm not as negative as you doesn't make it wrong.
No no...he got you good on that one, M-dub.
-
Then why didn't it hurt?
-
Then why didn't it hurt?
I dunno...you did respond to him instead of just letting it go.
-
But I'm responding to you, too, so there goes that argument! :)
-
LT XTNDR IS SRS BSNS!!
All your xtndr are belong to us.
It just never gets old.
-
But I'm responding to you, too, so there goes that argument! :)
So right you are.
-
You do realize where this is headed for Autodesk, right? If the LT-Extenders begin to eat into their profits in any real way, LT will become more expensive to offset that loss. Then there will be no advantage to buying LT plus an extender over the full featured application. Autodesk didn't get where it is by accident.
Yeah! What he said!
:-D
If you post to nothingness why do you bother other than to get so perceived brownie points!
-
Whatever, man... I said my piece. Did you read it?
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=21847.msg264866#msg264866
Did the smiley make me look dumberer?
-
dumberer :-D
-
What?
;)
-
Whatever, man... I said my piece. Did you read it?
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=21847.msg264866#msg264866
Did the smiley make me look dumberer?
Yes they did!
-
That's not the smileys that did that... it's just me. One of my main functions in here is to just speak up to make everyone feel smarter.
-
That's not the smileys that did that... it's just me. One of my main functions in here is to just speak up to make everyone feel smarter.
Huh...you got someone usurping your position.
-
You do realize where this is headed for Autodesk, right? If the LT-Extenders begin to eat into their profits in any real way, LT will become more expensive to offset that loss. Then there will be no advantage to buying LT plus an extender over the full featured application. Autodesk didn't get where it is by accident.
Yeah! What he said!
:-D
If you post to nothingness why do you bother other than to get so perceived brownie points!
We're normally on rather casual terms around here. A post just for ...
you know what... nevermind. (http://www.donotfeedtheenergybeast.com/)
-
That's not the smileys that did that... it's just me. One of my main functions in here is to just speak up to make everyone feel smarter.
You have failed your job!
-
That's not the smileys that did that... it's just me. One of my main functions in here is to just speak up to make everyone feel smarter.
You have failed your job!
You don't feel smarter?
Maybe it just didn't take. Go read it again. This time out loud. In an Irish accent.
-
Never mind, I'll just take that as a compliment. :)
-
That's not the smileys that did that... it's just me. One of my main functions in here is to just speak up to make everyone feel smarter.
You have failed your job!
You don't feel smarter?
Maybe it just didn't take. Go read it again. This time out loud. In an Irish accent.
I can't breath...
-
That's not the smileys that did that... it's just me. One of my main functions in here is to just speak up to make everyone feel smarter.
You have failed your job!
You don't feel smarter?
Maybe it just didn't take. Go read it again. This time out loud. In an Irish accent.
I can't breath...
See, Gazza, it's guys like Greg who make my job well worth it.
Now, Greg. Take the plastic bag off your head and breathe. My cats breath smells like cat food.
-
You don't feel smarter?
Maybe it just didn't take. Go read it again. This time out loud. In an Irish accent.
I can't breath...
Oh!..... Thanks Greg.
Go read it again. This time out loud. In an Irish accent. And breathe.
(don't wanna be responsible for suffocating by confusion)
-
All I know from all of this is:
Apparently Gazza, has issues about wether hacking software is illegal, and or unethical and is attempting to argue same here as a proxy for someone else. My first thought is, isn't he lucky that there is a place like The Swamp where the moderators do not possess a god complex and haven't already deleted this dribble and locked his account. My second thought is he would do well to learn to formulate a coherent line of questions and dialog, if he wishes to further a cause; as his debate skills are sorely lacking and has probably done more to hurt his cause than to advance it.
Sure the EULA for most software is written to protect the publisher from illegal distribution, reverse engineering, and or unlocking functions NOT in the version one purchased. That being the case, the fact that some application might unlock these features does not make it legal or ethical to do so. If he wants to argue that Autodesk is unfair in limiting a programmers ability to make money off of unlocking, or providing access to functions that are locked or limited by the LICENSED version the purchaser purchased, he has not convinced me that they are, or that the application he is touting is either legal or ethical. Would be nice if for all his energy that one person could agree with him. Perhaps his future posts will contain more coherent discussions, or information that might prove to have some value to the members at large.
-
Well said.
-
Does the LT Extender unlock aspects of LT? Or does it recreate a bunch of those aspects?
-
According to their documentation, the former, according to Gazza, the latter.
-
According to their documentation, the former, according to Gazza, the latter.
Thank you.
-
Granted, that's based on the falsehood of what their documentation actually states, not the reality of the dream of what their documentation should say.
-
From my research; admittedly Autodesk left themselves open for this in 'accidentally' leaving lisp code on the LT disc initially, thus enabling their 3rd party developers to develop.
After the lisp was removed, apparently others found means to exploit LT, or write code that LT could call without infringing on the EULA. My thought is if the others are playing by some rules imposed by Autodesk on their development activities, and these others aren't.
I imagine there is some manner to dance the legal minuet, and justify installing LT in some fashion to then write code for it that enables, enhances or extends LT's functionality and not violate the EULA. However, I'm fairly certain that to be a developer in partnership with Autodesk must involve some fee, and standards of practice involved. Given the first legal matter was ruled against this business or individual, it would suggest that this product or developer has found another way to exploit LT in some fashion. Let's hope that it was done within the spirit of the EULA, and that in short time we see Advertising for it in AUGI World. :roll:
-
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
What was disabled by Adesk? I looked through the documents I could find on their website and I didn't see any mention of functionality being "disabled". So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
So why is this functionality still in LT? Are the ADN members allowed to write applications for LT and use said "functionality"? It makes no sense to me, LT isn't Shareware were in once you've purchased the software you gain total functionality of the software.
-
there seems to be a lot of guesswork and assumption in this thread.
:|
-
there seems to be a lot of guesswork and assumption in this thread.
Agreed. You gotta love those EULA's! Has there been any legal action in this area?
-
Well said Mr. Farrell, on both posts.
Personally, take it a step farther. Legalities and technicalities are not an issue. I know the intent, and choose to abide by that intent. I knew I needed the extensibility of the full-featured application and purchased it. Had my financial position disallowed the full-featured version, I would have sought a different vendor to satisfy my needs. But then, that's just me.
I've always thought LT was a bad idea for Autodesk anyway. Why compete with yourself? Just drop the initial buy-in price of the full-featured application by a grand and move on. But then again, that's just me.
-
So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:
"Gee, your honor, it looked sorta like oregano, and I discovered that if you burn it and breathe the smoke you get plum silly. The guy that sold it to me looked respectable. Why is that against the law??"
"But your honor, my Auntie Bess gave me that ten grand, I don't have to pay taxes on it, right?"
"But she said she was eighteen."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a business owner, it is my responsibility to protect my business. You can bet that I will NOT take legal advice on lt extenders from Gazza, nice guy that he is. I will do my own research, get my own legal staff involved and then, instead of seeing just how close I can get to illegal without going overboard, I will find that point then steer well away from it. But then, if someone else prefers court and legal fees to the office and profits, who am I to stand in their way?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, from what I can gather it was a lot easier to cripple features than to remove them entirely. They've since reconsidered that wisdom.
-
So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:
What's "questionable" about it?
-
Joe User, who is deep enough in the industry that he is buying a copy of the software, but not so deep that he has any familiarity with the software he'll be using, wants to start his own company. Buddy McCadmunkhee, an acquaintance, says, "You just have to get AutoCAD, it's the Beas knees." Buddy has always had this slightly disturbing attraction to Bea Arthur and to Aunt Bea, which has kept him from correctly understanding that phrase. Our hero, Joe, goggles "Autocad retail" and clicks on the shopping.com link. He sees a listing for "Autodesk AutoCAD LT® 2008 Upgrade Version for PC (05728-051452-9300)" listed at $310 - $388, a little further down, " Autodesk AUTOCAD 08 FULL VERSION RETAIL BOX (00128-051462-9020) Full Version" for $4000. Now Joe, not being particularly inquisitive, doesn't even vaguely wonder what the difference between the AutoCAD LT® 2008 Upgrade Version and the AUTOCAD 08 FULL VERSION is. He also doesn't wonder why there is such a large gap in the price, he simply buys the LT.
When his software arrives, he installs it. One of those annoying boxes that nobody ever reads pops up. He automatically clicks "Accept" because he can't be bother to read a few paragraphs. Buddy, always the nice guy, offers him some lisp routines which he sends over in an email with an explanation on how to use them. Joe obviously can't get them to work.....To the Google Page (nana nana nana nana naaaa) Joe finds a product that says it will make lisp work in AutoCAD. It costs more than his AutoCAD license was to begin with, but Buddy said the lisp routines would save him eleventy million man hours a year, so he bites the bullet and gets it.
Now, our good friend failed to research the product he was buying. He agreed to a EULA without reading it. To me this would fall firmly under ignorance of the law is no excuse. The caveat to that being that it most likely crosses the line from ignorance to willful ignorance, but yes, questionable.
As I've said from the beginning, the legality of it is for lawyers to argue and courts to decide. We are neither. The morality of it, to me and obviously a few others, has been decided.
You are trying to play Autodesk off as the Evil Province (Microsoft is of course the Evil Empire and AD ain't no MS) because they are trying to protect their profit stream by expecting people to abide by license agreements that they agreed to. Businesses continue by making a profit. Hell, charities continue by making a profit. Joe User is starting his drafting company to, guess what, make a profit. That's what business models are designed to do.
Just remember what Buddy says though
(http://pichaus.com/girlfriend-hot-bea-1wf!l@.jpg)
-
Mark, have you -ever- heard of Autodek suing average Joe User who didn't know what he was doing?
I only ever see news about them going after people like LT Extender who willfully, repeatedly, after warning, after cease-and-desist, continue to violate the rules that Autodesk set forth.
-
Also, FWIW, while Autodesk has sued LT-Extender, they have never to the best of my knowledge gone after the user of one of these products. I worked at a company back in the early 90s, that had batch files set up on all but one of the CAD stations, in preparation for that day when the software police kicked in the front door and checked us for compliance. One license of autocad installed on 15%%P stations. They never came.
-
Nice post, Bob.
To me this would fall firmly under ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I had that exact phrase written in the 'post reply' box the other day, but FF crashed and I forgot to go back to it later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a business owner, it is my responsibility to protect my business. You can bet that I will NOT take legal advice on lt extenders from Gazza, nice guy that he is. I will do my own research, get my own legal staff involved and then, instead of seeing just how close I can get to illegal without going overboard, I will find that point then steer well away from it. But then, if someone else prefers court and legal fees to the office and profits, who am I to stand in their way?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I honestly think that Gazza knows he treads on thin legal ice, but tries as hard as he can to stay just barely legal. He certainly wouldn't be the first one to do so and won't be the last.
/humble opinion, quite possibly incorrect
-
...
YES YES YES :lol:
-
...
YES YES YES :lol:
I see we have another fan of 'ol Bea.
-
Also, FWIW, while Autodesk has sued LT-Extender, they have never to the best of my knowledge gone after the user of one of these products. I worked at a company back in the early 90s, that had batch files set up on all but one of the CAD stations, in preparation for that day when the software police kicked in the front door and checked us for compliance. One license of autocad installed on 15%%P stations. They never came.
They may never had come, but that doesn't mean it won't start. Heck, look at the RIAA.
-
Also, FWIW, while Autodesk has sued LT-Extender, they have never to the best of my knowledge gone after the user of one of these products. I worked at a company back in the early 90s, that had batch files set up on all but one of the CAD stations, in preparation for that day when the software police kicked in the front door and checked us for compliance. One license of autocad installed on 15%%P stations. They never came.
They may never had come, but that doesn't mean it won't start. Heck, look at the RIAA.
Yes, but you can't condemn a company based on what they haven't done.
-
Also, FWIW, while Autodesk has sued LT-Extender, they have never to the best of my knowledge gone after the user of one of these products. I worked at a company back in the early 90s, that had batch files set up on all but one of the CAD stations, in preparation for that day when the software police kicked in the front door and checked us for compliance. One license of autocad installed on 15%%P stations. They never came.
They may never had come, but that doesn't mean it won't start. Heck, look at the RIAA.
Yes, but you can't condemn a company based on what they haven't done.
Oh I don't know. You'd think a software company that big would be able to have an EULA that the everyday user can understand. They know their market. They know who's using their software, yet trying to read through an EULA is hard. Especially considering the way the present it. When you are trying to install their software and just want to get it installed as painlessly as possible. Now you have to take an extra 20 minutes to read through the EULA and if you really want to understand it, it is going to take much longer.
No, I believe they know what they are doing and, yeah they are protecting their butts, but when they feel it's time they will start going after the users.
-
You'd think a software company that big would be able to have an EULA that the everyday user can understand.
Like, an expandable list where you've got main headlines that you can quickly get the gist of, but expand to view more details. Much like a help file.
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
Why?
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
Why?
I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
Why?
I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.
Agreed. It's the nature of the beast.
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
Why?
I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.
I didn't say any company was better then AutoCAD. I certainly didn't mention DataCAD. I believe all companies should do it. Just because they ALL are hard to read and understand does not make it right.
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
Why?
I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.
I didn't say any company was better then AutoCAD. I certainly didn't mention DataCAD. I believe all companies should do it. Just because they ALL are hard to read and understand does not make it right.
You believe all company's should do it... but you don't believe it's right?
-
Let's see the Datacad EULA
Why?
I don't think Autocad's is hardly any worse than any other software company.
I didn't say any company was better then AutoCAD. I certainly didn't mention DataCAD. I believe all companies should do it. Just because they ALL are hard to read and understand does not make it right.
You believe all company's should do it... but you don't believe it's right?
Sorry...that response was a bit confusing.
I was stating that just because all companies don't give a clear EULA that the everyday person can understand easily doesn't make it OK. That is an "Everybody else is doing it, so why can't I?" view. You find that acceptable?
I believe all companies should make their EULA's easy to read and understand.
-
I believe all companies should make their EULA's easy to read and understand.
I think it would be in their best interest to do so. Then again, maybe not. Maybe they make them confusing to fight fire with fire. (Loopholes with loopholes). I still say they're written BY lawyers FOR lawyers.
-
Ah yea, that makes more sense.. I read it too quickly.
No the "everyone else is doing it, so should I" thing is dumb... but on the other hand... there's probably a -reason- that so many companies with professionals looking into their safety have taken a similar path. It's probably what is NEEDED to maintain their ownership, profitability, and over creator rights.
I think if you "dumb" it down to plain english, it would introduce too many loopholes... if you use generic words, it'll then be liable for interpretation, and that's the last thing you want for a legal document. Let's not forget... this IS a legal document.
As Gazza proves oh-so-well, you can't just rely on people to do the right thing, you have to make sure it's stated in a manner that is supportable by the means necessary for enforcement, otherwise the words are hollow.
If anything, the nature of lawyers is what's to blaim. Seems like it always comes down to that ;)
-
They know who's using their software, yet trying to read through an EULA is hard. Especially considering the way the present it. When you are trying to install their software and just want to get it installed as painlessly as possible. Now you have to take an extra 20 minutes to read through the EULA and if you really want to understand it, it is going to take much longer.
No, I believe they know what they are doing and, yeah they are protecting their butts, but when they feel it's time they will start going after the users.
Ever buy a house?? Sign a lease?? Buy life insurance??
Twenty whole minutes!!! the depravity of it all. Imagine requiring someone to take twenty whole minutes to protect themselves, their business, and their livelyhood while entering into a contractual agreement!! The audacity. String 'em up, I say.
It remains YOUR responsibility to read AND understand every agreement you enter with anyone. If you don't, don't enter.
-
So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:
What's "questionable" about it?
Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know. But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable. The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.
-
So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:
What's "questionable" about it?
Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know. But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable. The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.
Fair enough. But we still don't know what the "functionality" is? And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.
-
So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:
What's "questionable" about it?
Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know. But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable. The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.
Fair enough. But we still don't know what the "functionality" is?
Most of the LT documentaion I've read includes statements along the lines of "Same as big brother version EXCEPT <whatever>". That <whatever> would be that functionality. if you need that functionality, buy the full-featured version.
And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.
It is my understanding that they have made moves in that direction for the last few releases. Originally it was just easier to cripple than to re-program the features out of the application. That may be part of the reason for the price creep of LT for the last few releases.
But think about what you're saying here.
"If you don't want someone to hack your code, don't supply it. If you do and they do, its your own fault."
Does that even sound reasonable?
-
So let's say Joe User goes out and buys LT, will he know LT is crippled in some way? For the sake of argument let's say he does not. Joe then find one of the LT "extenders" on the net and buys it. Is he wrong? I'm guessing yes, according to the EULA. So instead of Adesk completely removing the so called "functionality" they want to make their customers the bad guy! At least that's the way I see it.
Let's see if that works for other questionable activities:
What's "questionable" about it?
Until you read AND understand the EULA, you don't know. But more to your question here, it was poor grammer on my part, the "other" activities were questionable. The point remains, ignorance of the your legal standing is no defence.
Fair enough. But we still don't know what the "functionality" is?
Most of the LT documentaion I've read includes statements along the lines of "Same as big brother version EXCEPT <whatever>". That <whatever> would be that functionality. if you need that functionality, buy the full-featured version.
... or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".
And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.
It is my understanding that they have made moves in that direction for the last few releases. Originally it was just easier to cripple than to re-program the features out of the application. That may be part of the reason for the price creep of LT for the last few releases.
But think about what you're saying here.
"If you don't want someone to hack your code, don't supply it. If you do and they do, its your own fault."
Does that even sound reasonable?
If I supply an application and I know someone can "flip a switch" and make it better than intended then yes I will remove said switch.
Have we established the fact that someone is "hacking" their code? Or simply making use of it?
-
You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".
From http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=8446924 pretty cut and dry IMO
4. What are the key differences between AutoCAD LT and AutoCAD?
Both the AutoCAD® and AutoCAD LT software programs use the same software architecture and technology, and both create files in the same native DWG file format and the DWF™ file specification. But AutoCAD provides additional capabilities in the following key areas:
* Advanced Customization with LISP, ARX and VBA
* Conceptual Design
* Network Licensing
* Sheet Set Management
* Presentation Graphics
* CAD Standards management
Learn more about AutoCAD.
Or, X marks the spot (http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/autocad08_vs._autocadlt08_release_comparison_matrix.pdf)
Have we established the fact that someone is "hacking" their code? Or simply making use of it?
Honestly Your Honor, I didn't hack their code, I simply made use of their code in my own product. :roll:
-
If you don't, don't enter.
ok
But you lose customers that way.
-
If you don't, don't enter.
ok
But you lose customers that way.
Doesn't seem that way to me. Just seems to me that people don't care if the understand it or not, and would rather not bother trying.
-
Honestly Your Honor, I didn't hack their code, I simply made use of their code in my own product. :roll:
Well, aren't you simply making use of the code in the Full version?
Oops...I think I read that wrong.
-
If you don't, don't enter.
ok
But you lose customers that way.
Doesn't seem that way to me. Just seems to me that people don't care if the understand it or not, and would rather not bother trying.
Oh, did I take Randy's statement out of context?
-
Honestly Your Honor, I didn't hack their code, I simply made use of their code in my own product. :roll:
Well, aren't you simply making use of the code in the Full version?
Oops...I think I read that wrong.
They specifically grant license to use code provided by them in the full version.
-
Just out of curiosity, why do you have any interest in this topic whatsoever? You don't use any Autodesk products. You glory in pointing out that you don't use any Autodesk products every chance you get. Why does this make any difference to you at all? Are you seriously interested in the topic or are you just one of the world's most ineffective trolls?
-
Just out of curiosity, why do you have any interest in this topic whatsoever? You don't use any Autodesk products. You glory in pointing out that you don't use any Autodesk products every chance you get. Why does this make any difference to you at all? Are you seriously interested in the topic or are you just one of the world's most ineffective trolls?
Funny...I thought you gave up on this topic.
-
Some of the discussion moved back into an area where there was discussion and it interested me again. Nice evasion though.
-
You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".
From http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=8446924 pretty cut and dry IMO
4. What are the key differences between AutoCAD LT and AutoCAD?
Both the AutoCAD® and AutoCAD LT software programs use the same software architecture and technology, and both create files in the same native DWG file format and the DWF™ file specification. But AutoCAD provides additional capabilities in the following key areas:
* Advanced Customization with LISP, ARX and VBA
* Conceptual Design
* Network Licensing
* Sheet Set Management
* Presentation Graphics
* CAD Standards management
Learn more about AutoCAD.
Or, X marks the spot (http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/autocad08_vs._autocadlt08_release_comparison_matrix.pdf)
Have we established the fact that someone is "hacking" their code? Or simply making use of it?
Honestly Your Honor, I didn't hack their code, I simply made use of their code in my own product. :roll:
*YAWN* been there done that. Where is the word "disabled"?
-
Just out of curiosity, why do you have any interest in this topic whatsoever?
I like to learn new things. I like to learn about the different CAD packages. I used to work on AutoCAD and it still hold interest for me. I don't know if I'll keep this job and if my next job has me working in AutoCAD I want to stay up on what's going on. Thanks for asking.
You don't use any Autodesk products. You glory in pointing out that you don't use any Autodesk products every chance you get.
I really don't glory in it. I just try to point out that there are other very effective CAD programs out there other then AutoCAD. I happen to think DataCAD does quite well, but that's because I'm currently using it. I point out features in DataCAD that do the same thing as AutoCAD. I do try to show DataCAD to be more then the "bargain basement" program that most of seem to have the opinion of. Just because I mention DataCAD does not make it glorifying it any more then you guys mention AutoCAD.
[/quote]
Why does this make any difference to you at all?
See my first reply about learning things.
Are you seriously interested in the topic or are you just one of the world's most ineffective trolls?
Typical Bob. Typical
I apologize for making you think for 1/2 a second. I'm unworthy of being in the swamp with you.
-
Some of the discussion moved back into an area where there was discussion and it interested me again. Nice evasion though.
Funny. Feel free to check your ego at the door.
-
Just out of curiosity, why do you have any interest in this topic whatsoever?
I like to learn new things. I like to learn about the different CAD packages. I used to work on AutoCAD and it still hold interest for me. I don't know if I'll keep this job and if my next job has me working in AutoCAD I want to stay up on what's going on. Thanks for asking.
This is about the first sign I've seen of it. In fact, you've got a fairly well established history of showing absolutely no interest whatsoever about packages you are no longer using. Anyone remember the softplan community at cad vault? You changed jobs and dropped it instantly leaving Mav to step up and try to take over. No effort at a transition at all.
You don't use any Autodesk products. You glory in pointing out that you don't use any Autodesk products every chance you get.
I really don't glory in it. I just try to point out that there are other very effective CAD programs out there other then AutoCAD. I happen to think DataCAD does quite well, but that's because I'm currently using it. I point out features in DataCAD that do the same thing as AutoCAD. I do try to show DataCAD to be more then the "bargain basement" program that most of seem to have the opinion of. Just because I mention DataCAD does not make it glorifying it any more then you guys mention AutoCAD.
I'm not going to take the time to go through the posts here where someone asks a question and specifies autocad, where you either chime in with "I don't use AutoCAD" or "In DataCAD it is x"
Why does this make any difference to you at all?
See my first reply about learning things.
See my previous two responses. This is not something that you demonstrate very often, hence my question.
Are you seriously interested in the topic or are you just one of the world's most ineffective trolls?
Typical Bob. Typical
I apologize for making you think for 1/2 a second. I'm unworthy of being in the swamp with you.
I believe that I have answered all of your questions, even going to the point of doing some research on some of the answers to save you having to put any personal effort whatsoever into it.
Some of the discussion moved back into an area where there was discussion and it interested me again. Nice evasion though.
Funny. Feel free to check your ego at the door.
I don't see how the fact that two sided conversations interest me more than ones where one side is doing nothing other than basic contradiction, is a demonstration of ego.
*YAWN* been there done that. Where is the word "disabled"?
Complete and total straw man and you know it. Saying "A is the same as B, except for these features" does a pretty good job of defining the features in question.
-
*YAWN* been there done that. Where is the word "disabled"?
Complete and total straw man and you know it. Saying "A is the same as B, except for these features" does a pretty good job of defining the features in question.
Yes that does show the two programs have different features but that doesn't say LT has them disabled.
-
I like to learn new things. I like to learn about the different CAD packages. I used to work on AutoCAD and it still hold interest for me. I don't know if I'll keep this job and if my next job has me working in AutoCAD I want to stay up on what's going on. Thanks for asking.
This is about the first sign I've seen of it. In fact, you've got a fairly well established history of showing absolutely no interest whatsoever about packages you are no longer using. Anyone remember the softplan community at cad vault? You changed jobs and dropped it instantly leaving Mav to step up and try to take over. No effort at a transition at all.
If I remember correctly there were a lot of changes going on at the Vault. Lot's of people thinking they were more important then they really were. Also I believe that the Splash site settled down and most of the new members had went back to Splash. The forum was pretty dead.
I'm not going to take the time to go through the posts here where someone asks a question and specifies autocad, where you either chime in with "I don't use AutoCAD" or "In DataCAD it is x"
I fail to see how this is glorifying. Yes I do that. It also allow the people to know that I don't have the exceptional knowledge most everyone else does on AutoCAD and to take my information as something that could be inaccurate. My experience of most of the people on this site is that everyone feels that any program that is not AutoCAD related is useless. I just point out that at least one package out there easily stacks up to AutoCAD.
See my previous two responses. This is not something that you demonstrate very often, hence my question.
Then you scan over my posts more then I thought. While I don't post very often when it's AutoCAD related, if I'm pretty sure on an answer I'll throw in my thoughts and or solutions.
believe that I have answered all of your questions, even going to the point of doing some research on some of the answers to save you having to put any personal effort whatsoever into it.
Once again you insult me. Ok.
Yeah you will answer my questions. I've thanked you for your answers. I do that more often then you give me credit for.
I don't see how the fact that two sided conversations interest me more than ones where one side is doing nothing other than basic contradiction, is a demonstration of ego.
No, I'm talking about your ego towards me and a few others. You always have one.
I can pretty much guarantee that you had a "better then you are" aire about you with gazza going into this thread.
YES his discussion has been main contradiction and little resources to back up his statements, but for your very first post, I read it as an attack.
Bob - I'm done with this. I'll ask my questions here. I'll post my opinions. If you answer my questions, thank you. I'm sure I'll thank you again if/when you do answer them. Just leave me alone otherwise.
<edit> just fixed a quote thingy Mav
-
This is about the first sign I've seen of it. In fact, you've got a fairly well established history of showing absolutely no interest whatsoever about packages you are no longer using. Anyone remember the softplan community at cad vault? You changed jobs and dropped it instantly leaving Mav to step up and try to take over. No effort at a transition at all.
If I remember correctly there were a lot of changes going on at the Vault. Lot's of people thinking they were more important then they really were. Also I believe that the Splash site settled down and most of the new members had went back to Splash. The forum was pretty dead.
If I remember correctly, you and I were working on a project together at the time, trying to figure out how to integrate autocad and softplan in some way although I don't remember the specifics. I PMed you about it and your response was basically 'I don't use softplan anymore, talk to someone else.' The community also stayed at least as active as it had been for quite a while thereafter.
No, I'm talking about your ego towards me and a few others. You always have one.
You get offended ridiculously easy. If you haven't realized that yet, you should think on it for awhile. Maybe ask for some other opinions. If you only got offended on your own behalf, that would be one thing, but you have to get offended for perceived slights on others as well. You have a tendency to get under my skin at times and always have, most of the times it's directly related to your offense level. Say it's not mutual though.
I can pretty much guarantee that you had a "better then you are" aire about you with gazza going into this thread.
YES his discussion has been main contradiction and little resources to back up his statements, but for your very first post, I read it as an attack.
I posted several times in this thread before gazza showed up. My first post in the thread had nothing to do with him, my first post to him was a direct response to a comment to me.
Just leave me alone otherwise.
You've got it.
-
Who removed their yes vote? There were three yesterday.
-
Who removed their yes vote? There were three yesterday.
Possibly some enlightenment was passed on, and a change in stance was made.
-
That would be cool. FWIW, one of the yes votes is mine. I downloaded and installed a third party LT enhancer package on a couple of our engineering boxes that more or less duplicated express tools. It was all menu macros and so, in my opinion, in line with the EULA in LT, but it still fits the criteria of the poll question.
-
I was a No, since I don't use LT. It's installed on my machine, but I only used it once. Actually, maybe it isn't on my machine anymore. (I'm at a different office right now and can't remember)
-
I was a No, since I don't use LT. It's installed on my machine, but I only used it once. Actually, maybe it isn't on my machine anymore. (I'm at a different office right now and can't remember)
Are you in the wrong building? Are you sure that wasn't last week? Or was it yesterday?
-
*blank stare*
Yes
-
* chomps popcorn, decides to poke... *
I don't use LT so I haven't customized it but I have customized DataCAD with the Mattel SDK.
-
Yes that does show the two programs have different features but that doesn't say LT has them disabled.
I've been trying to follow along and make sense of the sensible statements...
Does it really matter how something is not made available in LT?
An item could be disabled (crippled as some say), or just not packaged in the software.
Regardless how a feature is not in LT, it is not a standard feature published/installed by AutoDesk.
AutoDesk does not sell a key to allow a certain feature in LT to function.
The add-ons are a different story. They are either adding the functionality 100% on their
own with their own code and interface, or they are unlocking something that has been disabled....
I personally would be curious to know if any of the add-on companies are part of the ADN (Autodesk Development Network)
None of the three company's mention of being part of this...
LTX seems to be something for other developers and only adds ARX compatability:
LTX 3.3 supports all variants of AutoCAD LT 97 through AutoCAD LT 2008. The LTX engine supports most ObjectARX™ applications completely and transparently with no code modifications necessary. AutoLISP is not currently supported in LTX.
Cadlogic and LT Architect speaks nothing of what is happening in the background. It does not state that users can use personal lisp or arx type files...
PenDean, has a menu system, a block system and embeded routines. No mention about personal use of lisp or arx file types.
In the end by looking a little deeper, it seems that none of these three companies allow me to create a lisp routine and load it into LT and have it function? Can someone either deny or back this up? I have LT, but none of the add-ons programs...
-
* chomps popcorn, decides to poke... *
I don't use LT so I haven't customized it but I have customized DataCAD with the Mattel SDK.
:?
Oh!
Hahahhahahha :-D
-
There definitely are add-ons to LT that increase it's usability and increase productivity without coming close to violating the EULA. Then there are those that at least come much, much closer to doing so.
-
You know, when and if we ever figure out exactly what is what, we should modify the first post in this thread to post the results instead of future readers having to wade through 20 pages of blabber...
just a thought.
-
I don't use LT so I haven't customized it but I have customized DataCAD with the Mattel SDK.
Is that the one that adds the center wheel that "draws" at a 45 dg. angle? X-mas tree, here I come!
-
In the end by looking a little deeper, it seems that none of these three companies allow me to create a lisp routine and load it into LT and have it function? Can someone either deny or back this up? I have LT, but none of the add-ons programs...
With the one I used in the past (LT toolkit) you could load and run your own autolisp apps.
-
You know, when and if we ever figure out exactly what is what, we should modify the first post in this thread to post the results instead of future readers having to wade through 20 pages of blabber...
It's not all "blabber".
-
With the one I used in the past (LT toolkit) you could load and run your own autolisp apps.
This one? http://www.drcauto.com/ltfactory/products/lttoolkitmax/index.html (http://www.drcauto.com/ltfactory/products/lttoolkitmax/index.html)
They seem to have a lot of added benefit software for LT...
From their website:
A long time development associate of Autodesk, we specifically write extension application software for AutoCAD and are able to devise specialised routines when required by customers.
-
... or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".
Gee sounds like an argument to buy the full version to me. If you and I know, then the information can be discovered. It is the responsibility of the user to verify that to his level of comfort PRIOR to accepting the contract. Some are comfortable "winging it", some need more info. Either way the responsibility, and most probably the liability, remain with the user. If you don't know, then "don't".
And why doesn't adesk simply remove the "functionality"? Perhaps because it costs more to remove. I wonder if lawyers are cheaper than Programmers these days? Seems to me that if you want to protect your product and your profits you would not have the "functionality" available in the first place.
It is my understanding that they have made moves in that direction for the last few releases. Originally it was just easier to cripple than to re-program the features out of the application. That may be part of the reason for the price creep of LT for the last few releases.
But think about what you're saying here.
"If you don't want someone to hack your code, don't supply it. If you do and they do, its your own fault."
Does that even sound reasonable?
If I supply an application and I know someone can "flip a switch" and make it better than intended then yes I will remove said switch.
Even if it costs you more to re-write than writing the original code?
Should they have removed the possibility, in hind-sight, yes they should have. Does that make it OKAY to violate the contract, I don't think so.
Have we established the fact that someone is "hacking" their code? Or simply making use of it?
It is my understanding (in a nutshell ... pun intended) certain developers with "special knowledge" obtained under contract, used said knowledge to circumvent application locks placed within AutoCAD-LT to provide access to those areas of the application The full extent of the issue and details pertaining to the issue were never revealed as agreements were reached outside legal constraints. It was reported that some developers lost their favored developer status with Autodesk as a result of the agreements.
To me, it was a hack. If I need those features, I will avoid what I see as questionable and buy the full-featured version.
-
If you don't, don't enter.
ok
But you lose customers that way.
Who does? the User? how so? Autodesk? if that was their concern, they would function differently.
As a user it is my responsibility to read and understand the EULA. It is a contract. If I don't understand ANY contract, I don't enter it.
-
Side question:
I've been away a while, when did Bob and Greg get married?
-
Side question:
I've been away a while, when did Bob and Greg get married?
:-D
-
I think there are a few posts in this thread that are bordering on defamatory and libelous.
.. I don't think that Garry DeArchy would take kindly to some of the statements being made.
with regard legality and 'priveleged knowledge' I'm wondering why the developers have not been closed down through the courts if their methods are so questionable ; well I would wonder if I took this thread seriously.
-
... or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".
Gee sounds like an argument to buy the full version to me.
Sure that is is exactly what adesk wants you to do, spend more money on their software. But what if I'm buying six seats of LT plus "extender", I can save my company several thousand dollars, isn't that "good business" too?
If you and I know, then the information can be discovered. It is the responsibility of the user to verify that to his level of comfort PRIOR to accepting the contract. Some are comfortable "winging it", some need more info.
As far as I can tell I'm still within my contractual agreement. Does the EULA spell out these "usage restrictions" or "functionality disabled"?
Either way the responsibility, and most probably the liability, remain with the user.
Back to the "integrity" of it all. The user, the one who buys the software and allows adesk to survive as a business, is still held responsible for what seems like poor judgement on their part. Does that define "integrity" to you?
Should they have removed the possibility, in hind-sight, yes they should have. Does that make it OKAY to violate the contract, I don't think so.
No one has proven I'm violating the "contract".
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
-
I think there are a few posts in this thread that are bordering on defamatory and libelous.
.. I don't think that Garry DeArchy would take kindly to some of the statements being made.
Thanks for the reminder.
-
If you don't, don't enter.
ok
But you lose customers that way.
Who does? the User? how so? Autodesk? if that was their concern, they would function differently.
As a user it is my responsibility to read and understand the EULA. It is a contract. If I don't understand ANY contract, I don't enter it.
AutoDesk (or really any software provider)
But of course they aren't going to advertise it that way. They've covered their butts. Why should they care about their users?
-
No one has proven I'm violating the "contract".
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
This basically just said you can't use any other software in conjunction with LT that does the same thing as the excluded materials.
-
I think there are a few posts in this thread that are bordering on defamatory and libelous.
I've attempted to avoid such, if I have failed, sorry.
with regard legality and 'priveleged knowledge' I'm wondering why the developers have not been closed down through the courts if their methods are so questionable ; well I would wonder if I took this thread seriously.
I am not privy to the details of the agreement. However, some modified their tools, others exist in jurisdictions not as favorable to the position of Autodesk.
-
... or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
You and I both know what was "disabled" but I know there are at least a few folks that do not. So can someone show me a document from Adesk that says what is disabled? Otherwise how do I know if my add-on software is enabling "functionality".
Gee sounds like an argument to buy the full version to me.
Sure that is is exactly what adesk wants you to do, spend more money on their software. But what if I'm buying six seats of LT plus "extender", I can save my company several thousand dollars, isn't that "good business" too?
I can also buy one seat from a warez vendor in Russia and install it on six machines saving even more money, is that "good business"? The vendor said it was all okay and above board, and he's still in business, so it must be legit, right?
If you and I know, then the information can be discovered. It is the responsibility of the user to verify that to his level of comfort PRIOR to accepting the contract. Some are comfortable "winging it", some need more info.
As far as I can tell I'm still within my contractual agreement. Does the EULA spell out these "usage restrictions" or "functionality disabled"?
Whether you can "tell" or not, it remains your responsibility. Ignorance is no excuse. Example; a friend of mine once bought an item from an aquaintence of his. It was discovered at a later date to be stolen property and was returned to the rightful owner. My friend was out the cash, even though he acted in good faith and as far as he could tell, everything was kosher.
Back to the "integrity" of it all. The user, the one who buys the software and allows adesk to survive as a business, is still held responsible for what seems like poor judgement on their part. Does that define "integrity" to you?
Their integrity or lack of it has no bearing whatsoever on mine.
In my example above, the guy that stole the item had taken it off the seat of an unlocked car that had the windows rolled down. Yes, that was poor judgement. What difference should that make?
Should they have removed the possibility, in hind-sight, yes they should have. Does that make it OKAY to violate the contract, I don't think so.
No one has proven I'm violating the "contract".
And we're back to "its not wrong until a court says it is". I don't know if you've violated the EULA for LT or not, and truly it is not an issue for me, whether you have or not. I *KNOW* I have not violated the EULA for AutoCAD LT.
-
The ultimate AD evangelist. :police:
Your arguments to this point around the assumption that some kind of law is broken
simply because you believe it. However you have not provided any evidence to back
it up. There are no court cases no letters of cease and desist nothing just some vague
reference to some kind of maverick ADN developers that somehow abused some kind of
contract that you heard from maybe Evan Yares.
I could post hundreds of web site here of LT developers some of which are ADN members.
Do all of these people lack integrity and are they all breaking some kind of the law?
If that were the case AD would have taken some action.
I fully respect your position if in fact you actually use LT. However unless you post some
credible facts then your posts mean nothing. You give examples of people stealing something
which is mischives to say the lease.
Considering AD full users are in a minority to the LT users by a about a million this is a serious debate.
-
I fully respect your position if in fact you actually use LT. However unless you post some
credible facts then your posts mean nothing.
Funny, that's the exact thing that people have been saying to you after every single one of your posts. If you don't have to, why does anyone else?
-
I fully respect your position if in fact you actually use LT. However unless you post some
credible facts then your posts mean nothing.
Funny, that's the exact thing that people have been saying to you after every single one of your posts. If you don't have to, why does anyone else?
What people think or say really does not bother me.
Just because I am on a novice on this group with a slightly different opinion than the herd
doesn't mean my discussion is any less valuable than yours. Most are sitting back and observing.
So do you have LT and what makes you an expert on the subject?
-
I could post hundreds of web site here of LT developers some of which are ADN members.
Do all of these people lack integrity and are they all breaking some kind of the law?
If that were the case AD would have taken some action.
Please do post the websites.
-
I could post hundreds of web site here of LT developers some of which are ADN members.
Do all of these people lack integrity and are they all breaking some kind of the law?
If that were the case AD would have taken some action.
Please do post the websites.
Sounds like you just need one that is an ADN member so here your are!
http://www.asvic.com.au/
-
The ultimate AD evangelist. :police:
Not at all, I'm a businessman.
Your arguments to this point around the assumption that some kind of law is broken simply because you believe it. However you have not provided any evidence to back it up.
Not at all, you've missed my point entirely. I thought I'd made it quite clear that legality has nothing to do with my position. “Legality” is something that fluctuates with address. In some locales, violating a contract is no more illegal than wearing a hat. In others it is much more respected. In a global market, I need to be quite aware of that to protect my business.
I find some of these extension-type applications questionable, and choose to avoid their use. I understand the intent of Autodesk marketing LT, and choose to operate within that intent. It is my responsibility to protect my business, no one else’s, not Autodesk, not the ODA, not the legal system, just mine. I choose to err well on the side of caution.
There are no court cases no letters of cease and desist nothing just some vague reference to some kind of maverick ADN developers that somehow abused some kind of contract that you heard from maybe Evan Yares.
Settled out of court some time ago for many, others are in jurisdictions less supportive of a business' right to protect itself.
I could post hundreds of web site here of LT developers some of which are ADN members. Do all of these people lack integrity and are they all breaking some kind of the law? If that were the case AD would have taken some action.
Applications with the support of ADN are legitimate, however, there are applications available that are not so supported (i.e.: those that violate the EULA as posted here)
I fully respect your position if in fact you actually use LT.
I've already stated that I need the features in the full-featured version of the application, which is the tool I've purchased. But to your point here, it is most absurd to weigh the validity of a position by basing it solely on the use of the product.
Considering AD full users are in a minority to the LT users by a about a million this is a serious debate.
You've stated that before and I've asked for documentation. Can you supply it now, please?
-
If you were a true businessman you would not have to tell us.
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known a simple check on Ralph's
page will confirm this.
-
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known...
...that's why no one has ever disagreed with you on this... why do you keep bringing it up... it's not even a part of this discussion...
-
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known...
...that's why no one has ever disagreed with you on this... why do you keep bringing it up... it's not even a part of this discussion...
Because you cannot read!
Ask a question get an answer!
-
Ask a question get an answer!
Not true. I can show you quite a few questions that were asked directly to you by numerous people in this thread and you have yet to answer a single one of them.
-
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known...
...that's why no one has ever disagreed with you on this... why do you keep bringing it up... it's not even a part of this discussion...
Because you cannot read!
OH That's rich.
-
Ask a question get an answer!
Not true. I can show you quite a few questions that were asked directly to you by numerous people in this thread and you have yet to answer a single one of them.
O.K What is your question?
-
If you were a true businessman you would not have to tell us.
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known a simple check on Ralph's
page will confirm this.
Then the documentation should be quite easy for you to provide.
Ralph??
-
O.K What is your question?
Why are you here?
-
O.K What is your question?
Why are you here?
To keep the 3 Billy Goats from crossing the bridge.
-
If you were a true businessman you would not have to tell us.
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known a simple check on Ralph's
page will confirm this.
Then the documentation should be quite easy for you to provide.
Ralph??
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/03/autodesk-instal.html
-
If you were a true businessman you would not have to tell us.
Everyone here already knows, but you're new...
-
If you were a true businessman you would not have to tell us.
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known a simple check on Ralph's
page will confirm this.
Then the documentation should be quite easy for you to provide.
Ralph??
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/03/autodesk-instal.html
Interesting. I never would have guessed AutoCAD LT out numbered AutoCAD.
-
If you were a true businessman you would not have to tell us.
The figures of LT versus Full are widely known a simple check on Ralph's
page will confirm this.
Then the documentation should be quite easy for you to provide.
Ralph??
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/03/autodesk-instal.html
Ahh Grabo's site
From his site:
AutoCAD LT -- 3,680,000
Stand-alone AutoCAD -- 2,857,000
...
AutoCAD Architecture -- 539,000
AutoCAD Map 3D -- 264,000
AutoCAD Mechanical -- 237,000
According to my math, that's 3,680,000 LT users vs 3,897,000 full-featured users. hmmm... you seem to be a couple hundred thousand users short. Oh, or are you unaware that the verticals include the full featured application??
-
Your not doing youself any favours here. If you did not realise it you are posting
on an LT discussion group. Do you not get it they don't want the rubbish that
you submit
-
Ask a question get an answer!
Not true. I can show you quite a few questions that were asked directly to you by numerous people in this thread and you have yet to answer a single one of them.
O.K What is your question?
Because you cannot read!
Go back through the preceding 18 pages. You have been asked numerous times to provide anything that supports any of your opinions. You fail to do so. Documentation is provided that refutes what you say. Your only rebuttal is that it's wrong. You are asked to provide any evidence to the contrary and the closest you come is to say that there are a bazillion websites that agree with you. At least you finally provided a link to back up one of your assertions, even if it was the least topical of them. Oh yeah, and it showed that you were wrong.
-
Here's a few:
Are you seriously trying to say that LT with a lisp enabler is more powerful than ACAD?
Somehow I don't think that you get it.
Then maybe you should explain what it is you actually ARE trying to say?
LTextender were taken to a German court by AD for an entirely different reason.
At the time that were inciting people to download a full version (trail) and then they would
use those DLL. Once they stopped doing this the case fizzled away and they where paid
hush money. Hence they still exist today.
And yet, they haven't upated since 2004. I wonder why.
So how does that make it illegal and what part of the EULA do you think it breaks?
Bolding mine
From LT-Extender documentationLT-Extender 2000 Plus for AutoCAD© LT 2000 (or higher) is the most advanced software for customising
AutoCAD© LT. Using several advanced technologies, LT-Extender 2000 Plus offers the unique power to
break through (nearly) all AutoCAD© LT limitations – activating and enabling hidden features, emulating nonexisting
features and providing easy-to-use interface, users will get AutoCAD© power running AutoCAD© LT !
You may not utilize any equipment, device, software or other means designed to circumvent or remove any usage restrictions, or to enable functionality disabled by Autodesk in connection with the Excluded Materials.
Now maybe you can enlighten us on how this doesn't violate the EULA.
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
Could you then provide something credible other than your vague and defensive statements so that we can LEARN something?
We're not trying to attack you, we're trying to find the truth. Are you here to just raise a fuss, or actually provide some information?
You are quoting a dead site from that time when it was trouble
that was part of the pay off deal that you have been suckered into believing.
This product is alive and well among others and your assumption and postings
are misinformed.
I think Bob and others are being very patient with you, and trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you could consider rewarding their good faith by laying off the rhetoric and providing some actual information to support your claims. For that matter, how about explaining exactly what your claims are.
I still haven't figure out what point you are trying to make. It sounded, at one point, as if you were making the claim that LT with a programming API enabler could do things that full-blown AutoCAD can't do, or at least do the same things better or more quickly. Are you making that claim? Can we set aside the licensing issue for a moment, and just answer that question.
Does the LT Extender unlock aspects of LT? Or does it recreate a bunch of those aspects?
-
What about mine. It was quite simple.
O.K What is your question?
Why are you here?
-
What about mine. It was quite simple.
O.K What is your question?
Why are you here?
Mine first You obviously do not use LT so why are you here!
-
I use LT when I need to...
Your turn.
-
What about mine. It was quite simple.
O.K What is your question?
Why are you here?
Mine first You obviously do not use LT so why are you here!
I am CADD Support for a number of LT users.
Now it's your turn to answer questions, like you said you would.
-
What about mine. It was quite simple.
O.K What is your question?
Why are you here?
Mine first You obviously do not use LT so why are you here!
Nice. Again, a really quick glance at Josh's post gave me 9 questions that directly pertain to this topic. Instead of addressing any of them, you choose number 10 and then evade it instead of answering.
-
I hate to stop all the fun but .... let us move on before this thread becomes one big pile of steaming goo.
-
I've run out of popcorn anyway. I second the motion.
-
I hate to stop all the fun but .... let us move on before this thread becomes one big pile of steaming goo.
Your site your call!
-
Hehhehhehhuh..... You said Goo
-
I have several questions that I think beg asking ...
Autodesk has specifically stated that unlocking and enabling features in LT is a violation of the EULA. Lets presume this means what it says ... any feature in AutoCAD LT, but turned off is a violation to turn it on.
We have now come to the point where one might ask and indeed it has been asked several times ... What features have been turned off and disabled in AutoCAD LT? Lets presume then that lisp processing and loading arx has been disabled and turned off. It would thus be a violation to utilize any code or device to enable AutoCAD LT to process lisp and load arx modules.
Ok, so now we are left with what can we do, both legally and ethically. Since the DMCA specifically infers that it is lawful to use programs in conjunction with AutoCAD LT, we must ask then does LT Extender and other similar programs enable AutoCAD LT to load arx and process lisp programs. If the answer to this is yes, then we simply stop here .. using these programs is a violation of the EULA, although likely not unlawful under the spirit of the DMCA.
Then is there any possibility, no matter how small, that a person might utilize a program similar to LT Extender to be able to utilize lisp and arx programs in AutoCAD LT. I think there is ... Let me explain my thought process ...
If we presume the functionality is there, then we are barred from turning it on, however there is nothing unlawful or unethical about recreating the functionality using portions of the program that are not turned off and disabled. So, lets say I am familiar with the internal workings of the core AutoCAD engine ... I could thus utilize the portion of the code which writes the objects to the drawing, queries the drawings, and otherwise interoperates with the drawing without ever turning on any disabled features.
If the functionality is not there, then the argument is based on a comparison that AutoCAD LT is different from full blown AutoCAD. Fair enough ... then is it unlawful or unethical to cause AutoCAD LT to act as though it is the full version of AutoCAD? I think the answer to this question is a resounding no. To make a similar comparison would be akin to telling a user that they may not utilize any functionality in notepad that would cause it to function similarly to Word.
One might argue that if a user wanted Word functionality then they should purchase Word ... except that Notepad is provided at no additional cost to the user and this handy dandy program makes Notepad all the rage.
If we apply the same thought process to AutoCAD, one would believe then that if a computer is able to make AutoCAD LT function the same as full AutoCAD without utilizing code specifically turned off, regardless if the feature "could" be turned on would be both legal and ethical.
Personally I think that any contention that a person should buy full AutoCAD if they want more features than AutoCAD LT supplies is misplaced.
So, the final question is whether AutoCAD LT has portions that are turned off and/or disabled. So far, I have no credible evidence to suggest it does ... and if it does, what those features might be. Comparing one product against another merely shows that the features of the products are different, just as Word is different from Wordpad which is different from Notepad, which is different from Edit.
-
The one flaw I see in your thinking is that the EULA also says you can not circumvent the process that are turned off. Wouldn't having a program that mimics the processes in LT be circumventing those that are turned off?
-
The one flaw I see in your thinking is that the EULA also says you can not circumvent the process that are turned off. Wouldn't having a program that mimics the processes in LT be circumventing those that are turned off?
But at that point, you have to question whether the EULA is then legally binding. They can put whatever they want to in the EULA, but whether it is legally binding, or not, is the other issue. The DMCA would demand that such things not be standard in EULA licensing. A user must be free to use their computer and such as they wish, and not at the whims and fancies of a single software company.
-
The one flaw I see in your thinking is that the EULA also says you can not circumvent the process that are turned off. Wouldn't having a program that mimics the processes in LT be circumventing those that are turned off?
Not at all .. the question remains ... are those features turned off or are they not present ... if they are not present then surely it cannot be unlawful to duplicate feature that are available in a DIFFERENT program.
Consider this ...For many years Microsoft created an environment where users were not allowed to use programming that duplicated services already provided by Windows .. namely Internet Explorer was required to be used and the Windows OS made the use of other browsers very difficult and the argument eventually turned to litigation. You are now free to utilize whatever browser you wish ... even if Microsoft has a similar control. This is not much different ... different yes .. but not much. Autodesk provides a version of AutoCAD that duplicates some of the functionality of another one of their products, then suggest that you may not use anything that might give you functionality equal to or even superior to their other product. Using that logic, one could easily argue then that all features not included in AutoCAD, but could be provided if you paid additional funds, are unlawful and break the EULA .. such as products that do similar things as ADT, MDT and Revit. I submit then that using the "disabled/turned off" argument to include features that are not present, means that by merely customizing AutoCAD to any extent is a violation of the EULA.
-
I submit then that using the "disabled/turned off" argument to include features that are not present, means that by merely customizing AutoCAD to any extent is a violation of the EULA.
That's -if- Autocad (not LT) has similar statements in it's EULA as LT does about features/functions that are disabled/unincluded.
-
Guys, as much fun as this has been, can we move on? AFAIK, we're not lawyers or ADN LT developers, so we won't be able to get any definitive answers and will just keep running in circles on what's a good idea and what's not. If you really want it to keep going, head over to Lagniappe, which is where we *usually* keep this kind of debate.
Let's put the focus back on troubleshooting & helping out, which is what makes this place great.
Just a suggestion.
-
Guys, as much fun as this has been, can we move on?
I think everyone was expecting you to chip in with an "official" viewpoint.... :-)
Seriously, I agree. Until this is challenged in some court, somewhere - this can be debated forever.
I still say that just because someone leaves their car unlocked, doesn't give someone else the right to take off in it....
-
Gawd, I wasn't going to get into this.
I sell a car that will go 200 mph. I install a governor that will retard the timing so the car can never go beyond 75 mph. Disabling that function is against the EULA for this car, so you can't re-prom the car's computer to disable the govenor and you can't do anything that disables the retard the timing function. But Barney Navarro (R.I.P.) comes up with a supercharger that will push the car beyond 75 mph regardless of the timing retard settings built in. That would not violate the EULA(?!)
Although this thread has attained a degree of ponderosity (Who'd a thunk little ol' LT could generate so much discussion of such import), at least if ACAD ever checks us out they will find that we're a pretty honest bunch of license holders. We're so tight with our licenses that we squeek when we walk.
Bob G.
-
Guys, as much fun as this has been, can we move on?
I think everyone was expecting you to chip in with an "official" viewpoint.... :-)
I don't start until the 1st, but after that, if I get any information that I can post, I will do so. :-)
Gawd, I wasn't going to get into this.
Didn't I just ask you not to? ;-)
-
Anyone against a move?
Going once....
-
Where are we moving GAZZA to?
-
Going twice......
-
Going twice......
Make it so #1
-
go on . . . you know you want to
-
I am. This is the LT section and this thread is not in any way off that topic. Lock it or leave it alone, but there's no reason to move it IMO.
-
I am. This is the LT section and this thread is not in any way off that topic. Lock it or leave it alone, but there's no reason to move it IMO.
seconded.
I'll stop posting, though... but this IS the section FOR it.
-
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/keith/icons/pokestick.gif)
-
I'm still waiting on an answer...
-
I'm still waiting on an answer...
As with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy .. by the time you get an answer, you will have forgotten what the question is.
-
I don't think you should wait for any answers from Gazza.
Me thinks his purpose here was to act as an agent provocateur, to stir up discussion about this product that he may or may not have a vested interest in promoting. In the end his inability to answer questions, or provide meaningful facts has done little to forward his cause. If his purpose was to generate interest in the product he did; mostly negative. At this point I would have to ask that Gazza never try to promote my business or services to the public.
-
I'm still waiting on an answer...
As with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy .. by the time you get an answer, you will have forgotten what the question is.
What question? I'll just put down 42 for the answer, and get a B+...
-
I don't think you should wait for any answers from Gazza.
Me thinks his purpose here was to act as an agent provocateur, to stir up discussion about this product that he may or may not have a vested interest in promoting. In the end his inability to answer questions, or provide meaningful facts has done little to forward his cause. If his purpose was to generate interest in the product he did; mostly negative. At this point I would have to ask that Gazza never try to promote my business or services to the public.
I just wanted him to come clean, so as to gain some credibilty, or not, so as to be exposed as which is the case. I wouldn't let him sell my spit.
-
... Me thinks his purpose here was to act as an agent provocateur, to stir up discussion about this product that he may or may not have a vested interest in promoting...
First of all, I started this thread/poll, secondly, I don't think Gazza is here to promote a product (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=21821.msg263558#msg263558).
For the most part this thread has provided some interesting insight into the LT product and related software, so it wasn't a total waste of time but, I think it's time to move on now.
-
< .. >For the most part this thread has provided some interesting insight into the LT product and related software, so it wasn't a total waste of time but, I think it's time to move on now.
Provided insight into a few things Mark, so thanks :-)
-
... Me thinks his purpose here was to act as an agent provocateur, to stir up discussion about this product that he may or may not have a vested interest in promoting...
First of all, I started this thread/poll, secondly, I don't think Gazza is here to promote a product (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=21821.msg263558#msg263558).
For the most part this thread has provided some interesting insight into the LT product and related software, so it wasn't a total waste of time but, I think it's time to move on now.
Yes you did Mark and I was a novice!
I did not understand the mob behaviour until I posted here!
Unfortunately it was 10 against 1 and I do not have the time to reply to all so I did what I could!
I had a lot more to give but unfortunately I received plenty of personal hate mail that turned
me off!
The figures of your pole are not correct! KateM for example did not vote.
Anyway this was an interesting example in human behaviour!
Take Care
-
*sigh*
-
Ok, who's sending hate mail? Carol Bartz?
-
I did not understand the mob behaviour until I posted here!
Unfortunately it was 10 against 1 and I do not have the time to reply to all so I did what I could!
I had a lot more to give but unfortunately I received plenty of personal hate mail that turned
me off!
*Looking for a picture of that "not me" guy from the Family circus cartoon*
-
... Me thinks his purpose here was to act as an agent provocateur, to stir up discussion about this product that he may or may not have a vested interest in promoting...
First of all, I started this thread/poll, secondly, I don't think Gazza is here to promote a product (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=21821.msg263558#msg263558).
For the most part this thread has provided some interesting insight into the LT product and related software, so it wasn't a total waste of time but, I think it's time to move on now.
Yes you did Mark and I was a novice!
I did not understand the mob behaviour until I posted here!
Unfortunately it was 10 against 1 and I do not have the time to reply to all so I did what I could!
I had a lot more to give but unfortunately I received plenty of personal hate mail that turned
me off!
The figures of your pole are not correct! KateM for example did not vote.
Anyway this was an interesting example in human behaviour!
Take Care
First off, I appologize to Mark. I have been attempting not to post in this thread since your first request that we stop, except for the time that Mav asked for opinions. I've got to make a couple of comments now.
While it's true that Mark started this thread, not Gazza, if you go back to the only post that Gazza had made prior to the one Mark linked to, he obviously has a vested interest.
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=8780.msg144987#msg144987 but even the one that Mark linked to, was basicall AD banned me so now you need to give me a place to continue what I was banned for. At least that's how I read it when you first posted it. Your awesome level of helpfullness in all of the other LT threads has me doubting that though. :roll:
Secondly, the "mob" was opposed to what we see as a technique that to us is of questionable legality. The discussion was underway before you came in and made yourself the champion of the other side. In other words, you asked that it be directed at you.
Third, the 10 on 1 so I couldn't keep up response is bullpoopoo*. You were able to quote posts and say that they were wrong, you could have just as easily responded with information if there were any to respond with.
Fourth, 1974 members, 17 responses...Wait, someone didn't vote???? How do you know whether Kate voted, or what her response would have been, and why does it matter. One more vote from anyone wouldn't have skewed the results greatly.
Finally, if you received hate mail, please post it for all of us to see. If you did, I will be the first to bitch at them what done it. There is no reason for it. Until then though you sound a whole lot like you have through this entire thread. Just another internet martyr.
* I kept it clean
-
<pats Bob on the back>
*attaboy*
For the record, I see nothing inherently wrong with the addition provided it is done in compliance with the EULA and the law
-
The figures of your poll are not correct! KateM for example did not vote.
Actually, I did vote. I just didn't say in the thread which way I voted, but I will now, if you're curious. My (former) firm does not use an LT add-on. We used to have one, but dropped it before our last upgrade for a variety of reasons.