Topic: LT Add-on, 3rd Party software

[Josh Nieman]

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.

[Keith™]

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.

[Josh Nieman]

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.

[Kate M]

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.

[rkmcswain]

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....

[Bob Garner]

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.

[Kate M]

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?

[Maverick®]

Anyone against a move?



Going once....

[mjfarrell]

Where are we moving GAZZA to?

[Maverick®]

Going twice......

[Keith™]

Going twice......

Make it so #1

[Dinosaur]

go on . . . you know you want to

[Bob Wahr]

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. 

[Josh Nieman]

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.

[Keith™]