Topic: LT Add-on, 3rd Party software

[pmvliet]

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

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.

[CADaver]

... 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.

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

Side question:
    I've been away a while, when did Bob and Greg get married?

[Josh Nieman]

Side question:
    I've been away a while, when did Bob and Greg get married?

 

[Kerry]

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.



 

[Mark]

... 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.

[Mark]

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.

[Greg B]

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?

[Greg B]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

... 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.

[Gazza]

The ultimate AD evangelist.
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.

[Bob Wahr]

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?

[Gazza]

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?