Manipulating source code meant only for authorized personell falls into that catagory.
Perhaps manipulating source code WOULD be a violation, it is a gray area legally, BUT unless someone hacked into Autodesks computers or copied the source code from one of their computers, they have NOT manipulated source code. What they have done is manipulate data. If I purchase a license from a company for software, they do not tell me that I cannot exploit that software to it's full potential, they tell me that I may not reverse engineer the software, they tell me that I may not copy, sell, or give the software away, they DO NOT tell me that I can't send commands to the software from an external program EVEN IF they NEVER intended for it to work in that manner.
You can manipulate data, and data is NOT owned by anyone except the producer of that data. Courts have long held that when a program creates user data it belongs to the user alone, and the creating program has absolutely no legal right to it. As long as the original program remained intact and unmodified, Autodesk will lose this battle, and in the end, they will lose more than the lawsuit, they will lose dollars when people finally get tired of their shenanigans.
I suppose that is nothing like how you found a way to utilize the programming you have to do things that Autodesk has tools for sale to do .. things they INTENDED for you to purchase if you wanted that functionality.
Again apples to grapefruit. I used the tools they provided as they were designed, as AutoDESK intended they be used.
We keep talking about intent .... do you not think that Autodesk fully intends that when people need a piping program or architectural program that they come to them for the appropriate add-on? They INTEND to prevent third party developers by requiring that you register with them for the "right" to develop programs for their software packages. That in and of itself is the EXACT reason why Microsoft was sued and eventually lost.
Using your scenario they could then argue that if you want to do piping, then you must buy their package that does piping, and not use another product that they do not approve.
Again you are purposely obfuscating the issue. Surely you have a better grip on language than that.
When "they" came for the business that made add-ons, I said nothing, I wasn't a business ... when "they" came for me for making add-ons, no one said anything ...
You my friend are the one who is obfuscating the issue...if you would but once consider that if Autodesk decided tomorrow that you should not be allowed to do piping (or anything else for that matter) without purchasing their package, then you would understand my position. It just so happens that I understand yours, I just do not subscribe to it.
Answer this for me if you would ....
If I developed a Python interpreter for AutoCAD would THAT be a violation?
Did Autodesk ever INTEND for Python to be a programming language for AutoCAD?
How about this? When Autodesk finally kills lisp (they have been talking about it for the last 3 releases) will you gladly put away all of your lisp programs?
If Autodesk wins this case, it will stop many companies from doing all sorts of add-on software
Only if it violates the as designed condition of the software. Trotting out a "boogyman" does little for the discussion.
"As Designed" is not a condition in the licensing agreement, and the "boogeyman" in this instance IS Autodesk.
I believe, as do many others, that this is nothing more than Autodesk attempting to stop companies from competing with them against themselves,
Only if they are using code to which they have no right. How would you, or anyone else on this forum, feel if someone bundled up your beautiful code posted here and sold it? Miffed I bet, I've seen flare-ups about not posting where it came from, I can only imagine the flak if someone was selling it.
When I post code, it is there to be modified, to be changed, and made to do things that I did not intend for it to do...BUT...if I post compiled code I do not intend for people to modify it, decompile it, or change it, however, if they found a way to make it do more than I originally intended, then good for them...the issue of selling it is not an issue when comparing it to the process at hand. LTE and ManuSoft are NOT selling hacked Autodesk programs, they are selling programs that work along side and in concert with Autodesk products. There is a huge difference.
Personally, I always thought that AutoDesk marketing LT was a mistake. They were producing a product that competed with themselves.
...essentially giving Autodesk the final say in who can sell an addon product to whom and for what purpose.
AutoDESK should have the right to restrict access to certain portions of their code. Should they NOT? Should we all have complete and open access to everyone else's code? Or should we be able to retain the right's to share our code with those we wish, and restrict it others? If AutoDESK can not control it's code, how in the world will some small programmer be able to protect his.
Autodesk has always held that "registered" third party developers can have free unabated access to their source code, their computers, and their libraries. If I wanted to have access to the code I could pay Autodesk for the right to see that code, I do not, LTE did not, ManuSoft did not, therefore, if I produce a program that changes the functionality or look of AutoCAD am I in violation of copyright? Using your way of thinking, I would.
I'll post an example of what you term "hacking" and "cracking" ... that is nothing more than using Autodesk PUBLISHED and Microsoft PUBLISHED API calls ... stay tuned
