Topic: LT Add-on, 3rd Party software

[Gazza]

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!

[Gazza]

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!

[M-dub]

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.

[Josh Nieman]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[Gazza]

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.

[Gazza]

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.

[Gazza]

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

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[Gazza]

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!

[M-dub]

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!

[CADaver]

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?

[M-dub]

I think he DOES know more of the story, but it's the bad part and he's leaving that bit out on purpose.

[Gazza]

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!

If you don't have anyting better to respond then give it miss!