I think we are all irked by basically the same things. We express slightly different components of those things first and in slightly different ways than another would. These set off little alarms in the heads of those who are veterans of previous such discussions and then suddenly there is a disagreement among people who feel roughly (+/- epsilon) the same way.

I can keep certain states of mind going for a long time, but disagreeing with such well-known denizens of this forum is not one of them (particularly when I think that, minus some misunderstanding of the intent and extent of the other's comments, we're basically all on the same page).

A good night (or good morning) to all of you.

I don't believe in EULAs -- period.

When I pay a developer money for a product I'm fulfilling my moral obligation to ensure they are compensated for their hard work. If there is anything immoral, it's the EULA itself which is a kind of usury, where I'm merely renting the software on someone else's terms, even though I've paid money for a physical product.

If one learns anything from history it's that regulations that have a possibility of being abused eventually will be, just very slowly. MS's Front Page clause is a great example of that, and I have no doubt you will see more of that in the future.

Software EULAs are as ridiculous as putting a EULA on a hammer, a can of paint, or on a book before you open it. Imagine an introduction stating,

"Before proceeding to chapter one, I hereby agree not to quote this book in any research, share it with colleagues, or make copies for my own personal use. Additionally, I agree not to highlight the book's pages, write in its margins, or fold its pages without written consent from the author. Lastly, by proceeding to chapter one I am making a binding agreement with the author to only propagate ideas that are in agreement with his/her ideology, and ensure maximum profits, even in the name of stifling innovation or free thought."

Thankfully Emerson and Thearou weren't contracted by publishers who enforced EULAs, or we'd never benefit from any of their writing. Thankfully early scientists didn't put EULAs on their works limiting the ways in which their findings could be applied to others. The whole discussion just illuminates something that's obvious to anyone who's studied the history of computers in the past 40 years: hobbyists and good guys innovate and cultivate new ideas -- usually for no profit; corporations repackage it and find a way to close it for highest profit. BBS software is a great example of that. All of the major BBS software I used back in the day were donationware. I don't remember the specifics, but an unregistered copy of WWIV might have say "unregistered" in the login, but other than that -- it was fully functional. What prompted one to pay was the happiness the software brought to a person's life each day, and a desire to make sure its creator benefits. Later on comes $100 BBS software and boards that charge $15/month for access, usually offering nothing more than some CD-ROMs full of porn and perhaps multiple lines; there's nothing really innovative about that, it just appeals to the lowest common dominator.

I don't mind paying Apple or other kick-ass developers for their products (Rouge Amoeba, Panic -- more I can't remember), but if I discover I can make any piece of their software do something interesting through some hex editing, I'm going to do it, just like we hex edited Renegade and Telegard back in the day. I'm not talking about pirating here; I'm talking about something legitimate -- kind of similar to what the Game Genie did with gaming (Mario having infinite lives or jumping above the sky). There's a slew of modified ROMs in the emulation scene edited in this manner, like 10 year old spots games for the Genesis modified to include 2005 rosters -- cool innovations that are technically 'illegal.' Or how about a piece of educational software I bought last year that was listed as Mac compatible, but the manufacture (Vivendi) refused to acknowledge a bug in? Essentially, it would refuse to run on any machine with a drive lesser than 7200 RPM because a small piece of code checking hard drive space, and Vivendi refused to refund my money (more on that here). The likelihood of a EULA-breaking hacker fixing this issue is much higher than Vivendi ever lifting a finger.

The bottom line is that violation of a EULA is not a moral issue, it's a legal one. If you want to argue over whether or not someone is good/bad for doing so it's the equivalent to arguing over which operating system is the best, and even with that argument people can develop borderline morality arguments (i.e. supporting proprietary software spreads closed standards, empowering the Microsoft empire, etc.) That's on the fringe of things, and people who support those views have a legitimate experience and psychological reasons for doing so. With this matter however, I have no idea why anyone would take a fringe position in favor of EULAs, except for a sadistic need to please authority, or that they benefit from their exploitation first-hand.

Good heavens, Bedouin: Emerson and Thoreau? :eek: You're killing us with strained generalizations and straw man arguments, and your reasoning about what constitutes moral actions also needs much tweaking, imo.

You don't agree with EULA?

Fine. Duly noted. Pass the biscuits, please. ;)

But you also put in a couple of plugs for piracy (that were fairly well rebutted), and that's different from your tweaking code on a program you lawfully purchased. We don't condone piracy here, and I've yet to hear one good reason from anyone why it should be considered licit or moral.

This is a problem that arises every time there's a conflict between strict legality and the public perception of moral and ethical behavior. Perhaps the best example in US history is the Volstead Act: the law that started alcohol prohibition in 1920 and was not repealed until 1933. Consumption of alcoholic beverages actually increased steadily throughout those years: illegal for sure, but not, by many, considered immoral - in fact there was a certain "chic" to breaking it. Similarly there was a substantial exodus of US citizens eligible for the draft to Canada during the Vietnam war (I know two personally). Illegal, but considered by those folks to be the only moral thing to do.

Having said that, it is always the responsibility of a forum like MacOSXHints to stay the course on the legal side. Participants can argue against the law from a moral perspective (at least in the Coat Room), but cannot advocate breaking that law or publish workarounds here. That's responsible behavior whether those of us who hate the law are frustrated by it or not. Blogs are your only outlet.

I originally did not respond because I wasn't sure if bedouin had seen my peace offering the let the dogs (sleeping or not) lie the way they were.

However, if there were a 'roll eyes' smilie with a frown on it, I'd use that.

I'd like to know whether or not anyone's mind has ever been changed in any of these discussions. I used to be opposed to closing threads for any but malicious postings, but now I think I'd support the instant closing of any thread having to do with license agreements or pirating: all that happens is the ire of posters are raised against one another without any minds being opened or changed. No, it would not be censorship in the sense that the thread would not be removed, it would just save everyone a lot of time and angst, it would save the forum a lot of annoyed members as well as some drive space.

So I guess in light of this current thread someone is going to go over the main site with a fine tooth comb and single out the numerous EULA violating 'hints' on this site? I won't do it, but if you insist on being self-righteous why be hypocritical?

If you believe wearing your seat belt, coming to a complete stop at an intersection, and refusing to jaywalk makes you a better person, that's nice. But I'm tired of pedantic individuals equating moral users as pirates and scoundrels simply because they disagree with a law, which has been done to me numerous times here, though I dare you to find one piece of warez in my software collection.

I don't care if anyone changes their mind, but don't wag your finger at someone over a legal disagreement, when law has nothing to do with right or wrong. The whole opposition to me in this thread has been followed a one-track assertion that I'm a pirate and bad guy because I disagree with EULAs as a concept, and never evolved beyond that kind of simplistic logic; piracy was put aside long ago, on the very first page, as anything 'legitimate' -- yet the argument is always brought back to that.

How brainwashed are you?

I do recall you tossing piracy aside as something you do not condone, and I appreciate that.

There is something separate from being brainwashed, being law abiding, or being moral which is called honor. When I give my word, I follow through. If I do not intend to follow through with portions of a EULA, then I will not agree to it and I will not purchase the item/license. People know what to expect from me and I am treated as such, and that has its own reward separate from money or patronization.

We all have such different backgrounds and outlooks that each of us is coming from an angle that the others cannot see (since we don't know each other and are using the medium of typed words). That is why you find me brainwashed when that is not the case and why I find some of what you say to be surprising when you probably have a valid vantage point that you are operating from as well. We look through our own glasses and we see things in such black and white about people we haven't a clue about. The futility of this and the negative feelings generated from so little for so little is what I was talking about above.

I give my word that I am not posting again to this thread.

I wish you well. May we meet in other threads in better circumstances.

I'm finished with it as well, because I feel that anyone who wants to investigate this issue can review this thread and see both sides of the coin.

I'm sorry, but I just can't let this kind of fallacious reasoning pass. First, I was discussing principles, and second, we made it quite clear that we do not condone piracy. Third, if you do search the site, you'll find that wherever illegal activity is being suggested, it is confronted and the threads are promptly closed. That includes "hints," by the way. Rob and the rest of the Admins and Mods aren't into propagating illegal hints.

If you believe wearing your seat belt, coming to a complete stop at an intersection, and refusing to jaywalk makes you a better person, that's nice. . .

Did I say that? Did anyone say that? Was anyone proposing anything analogically equivalent? This is the kind of fallacious reasoning that makes these discussions so difficult.

I don't care if anyone changes their mind, but don't wag your finger at someone over a legal disagreement, when law has nothing to do with right or wrong. . .

Sez you! I'm very much aware of the distinction between morality and legality, but, that said, there's often considerable overlap, which I don't think you're acknowledging.

Anyways . . . I'm closing this one down as we've covered the thread topic and related spin-offs adequately . . . for about the 10th time this year on this board.