>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>>>>> If you give it the opportunity, >>>>>>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus >>>>> Baron wrote: >>>>>> Total bull !
>>>>> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words >>>>> and of fewer actual ideas. >>>>> I suggest a reading comprehension course.
>>>>> Markus described the whole sad tale. >>>> Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it >>>> was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a >>>> cracked version."
>>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite >>>> some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture >>>> their schemas from scratch!" >>> If this is true, then Cadsoft should be avoided. A piece of software >>> should not throw away or cripple files under any circumstance. If it >>> does, it is useless. Period.
>> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >> see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >> imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an illegal
> That is why Cadsoft's behaviour is illegal under Dutch law. If you buy > something in Holland which appears to be stolen you'll still be the > rightful owner UNLESS you could have suspected you bought stolen goods > (ridiculous low price, weird circumstances, etc). ...
Well, Dutch law seems to be, ahem, strange. AFAIK in pretty much any other Western country you'd be required to hand over the stolen goods.
So if someone steals your car and sells it, can the new "owner" really keep it when the Rijkspolitie stops him and finds out?
> ... Markus got the > schematic symbol in good faith and had no reason to doubt it. So > Markus is not part of the crime.
No, he is the victim of a criminal act committed by someone else.
> Cadsoft really should get to the root of the problem (for example by > disabling illegal copies) instead of incriminating their paying > customers. ...
If you find the silver bullet in how to disable illegal copies I am sure they would offer you a lucrative job instantly. But then you'd have to move and learn Bavarian :-)
> ... Besides I wonder how much time Cadsoft put in their copy > protection scheme. It might be more time than it would have taken to > fix some long standing issues.
Agree, but only if they really have invested much time into that. I believe that if they had sunk some energy into more important stuff like hierarchical sheet structures they could have clocked tons of extra sales. At least with some of my clients.
JeffM wrote: >>JeffM wrote: >>>The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>If you give it the opportunity, >>>it will lock you out of your work product. >>>http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus
> Baron wrote: >>Total bull !
> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words > and of fewer actual ideas. > I suggest a reading comprehension course.
There is no DRM in Eagle. Period !
> Markus described the whole sad tale. > Though he was a paid-up user, > Cadsoft treated him like something to be scraped off their shoe.
I'm well aware of what the word means. The guy copied something from someone else's work to use in his own. So he was trying to save himself some work. I've no problem with that. But to try and assign blame on Eagle for his own actions...
> >>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into > >>> quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is > >>> to recapture their schemas from scratch!"
> [...]
> > When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I > > see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who > > imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an > > illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake > > 100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the > > Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy > > who gave it to you.
> From the above it sounds more like they won't accept the fake bill *and > then they confiscate all your genuine money too*.
> If it just rejected the part with a warning "part MC68HC11 created with > illegal copy", and allowed you to delete it, that would be more > reasonable. Why deliberatly infect the designs of honest customers?
> > CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan, > > pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little > > profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to > > other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles.
> I agree it is better, but that does not make it acceptable.
> IMO one of the great advantages of using a product like Eagle with good > community support would have been the ability to share libraries with > other users. But this is unthinkable given the above.
sounds like a strange way to attract new and keep old customers
it prevents someone who's used a cracked version from buying a legal copy, because it won't accept the old designs
it prevents someone with a legal copy with possibly contaminated designs from buying an upgrade
and I guess any design could become contaminated if anyone who worked on it got his key stolen and it got out in the open
Michael A. Terrell wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> Joerg wrote: >>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >> [...]
>>>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >>>>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>>>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
>>> The car, or the driver?
>> Depending on your driving style to the place possibly both. Sometimes >> the driver doesn't pass and then gets a ride in the sheriff's car.
> Another good reason to live in Florida. No state income tax, and > very few insane state laws.
How's the weather there this time of year? Have to go on a biz trip, West Palm Beach. On the news it looked like parts of FL were flooding but don't remember where. Do I have to bring waders and rain gear?
DRM == Debiitating Restriction Measures aka a remote kill switch not under the user's control. Big hint: DRM != Digital Rights Management (When you surrender to DRM, **YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS**.)
>>Baron wrote: >>>plagiarist.
>The guy copied something from someone else's work >to use in his own. >So he was trying to save himself some work. >I've no problem with that.
I have always assumed he was given full permission to reuse anything in the document he received. ...and I'm not real big on extension of the pre-Internet "Permission Culture" based on things that didn't have zero marginal cost.
>But to try and assign blame on Eagle for his own actions...
Had Cadsoft made people **aware** that as a term of sale they were receiving a product with a remote kill switch, THAT would be different. A contract that doesn't reveal ALL of it's terms is NOT a contract. Those corporations who use DRM should be required to put BIG stickers on their products and BIG notices on all of their Web pages stating that. Otherwise it's a deceptive business practice.
>> The guy copied something from someone else's work >> to use in his own. >> So he was trying to save himself some work. >> I've no problem with that.
> I have always assumed he was given full permission > to reuse anything in the document he received.
In that case the person giving him such permission has acted criminally, by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. Very simple, IMHO.
>JeffM wrote: >>I have always assumed he was given full permission >>to reuse anything in the document he received.
Joerg wrote: >In that case the person giving him such permission has acted criminally, >by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. Very simple, IMHO.
You and I will never see eye to eye on "intellectual property". e.g. In a time when tools make the creative process ever easier, I see the ever-increasing time spans in laws as a perversion of the intent of The Founding Fathers: http://google.com/search?q=cache:xOpHk86NJYUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
...and a remote kill switch THAT ISN'T REVEALED is more than just bad faith; it is a breach of contract law.
> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > Joerg wrote: > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>> Joerg wrote: > >>>> Jim Thompson wrote: > >> [...]
> >>>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats > >>>>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
> >>>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe.
> >>> The car, or the driver?
> >> Depending on your driving style to the place possibly both. Sometimes > >> the driver doesn't pass and then gets a ride in the sheriff's car.
> > Another good reason to live in Florida. No state income tax, and > > very few insane state laws.
> How's the weather there this time of year? Have to go on a biz trip, > West Palm Beach. On the news it looked like parts of FL were flooding > but don't remember where. Do I have to bring waders and rain gear?
A few clouds here today with the high in the mid 70s and the low in the hig 40s. I haven't heard of any floding on the news lately, but today was mostly about the shootings in Orlando. About five hours of coverage, so far.
>>>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into >>>>> quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is >>>>> to recapture their schemas from scratch!"
>> [...]
>>> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >>> see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >>> imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an >>> illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake >>> 100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the >>> Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy >>> who gave it to you.
>> From the above it sounds more like they won't accept the fake bill *and >> then they confiscate all your genuine money too*.
>> If it just rejected the part with a warning "part MC68HC11 created with >> illegal copy", and allowed you to delete it, that would be more >> reasonable. Why deliberatly infect the designs of honest customers?
> We don't know whether it was just a model. Sounds more like part of a > schematic.
>>> CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan, >>> pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little >>> profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to >>> other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles.
>> I agree it is better, but that does not make it acceptable.
>> IMO one of the great advantages of using a product like Eagle with good >> community support would have been the ability to share libraries with >> other users. But this is unthinkable given the above.
> Do we know it was actually a library part alone that caused this?
It was a voltage regulator, apparantly. I am not familiar with Eagle so don't know whether this would normally be a "library part" or a circuit fragment.
>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>>>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>>>>>> If you give it the opportunity, >>>>>>>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus >>>>>> Baron wrote: >>>>>>> Total bull !
>>>>>> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words >>>>>> and of fewer actual ideas. >>>>>> I suggest a reading comprehension course.
>>>>>> Markus described the whole sad tale. >>>>> Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it >>>>> was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a >>>>> cracked version."
>>>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite >>>>> some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture >>>>> their schemas from scratch!" >>>> If this is true, then Cadsoft should be avoided. A piece of software >>>> should not throw away or cripple files under any circumstance. If it >>>> does, it is useless. Period.
>>> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >>> see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >>> imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an illegal
>> That is why Cadsoft's behaviour is illegal under Dutch law. If you buy >> something in Holland which appears to be stolen you'll still be the >> rightful owner UNLESS you could have suspected you bought stolen goods >> (ridiculous low price, weird circumstances, etc). ...
>Well, Dutch law seems to be, ahem, strange. AFAIK in pretty much any >other Western country you'd be required to hand over the stolen goods.
>So if someone steals your car and sells it, can the new "owner" really >keep it when the Rijkspolitie stops him and finds out?
If the new owner can proof he bought the car in good faith, he can keep it. This is about limiting the number of victims to a crime. Besides most people are insured against theft over here.
>> ... Markus got the >> schematic symbol in good faith and had no reason to doubt it. So >> Markus is not part of the crime.
>No, he is the victim of a criminal act committed by someone else.
A crime he had nothin to do with. So why should he be punished? Its not like in the war where they shot a few innocent people to set an example.
>> Cadsoft really should get to the root of the problem (for example by >> disabling illegal copies) instead of incriminating their paying >> customers. ...
>If you find the silver bullet in how to disable illegal copies I am sure >they would offer you a lucrative job instantly. But then you'd have to >move and learn Bavarian :-)
There is always the lmlicense manager. Not ideal but it does work and has become an industry standard for a reason. Probably too expensive for Cadsoft or the 'not invented here' syndrome got in the way.
-- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!" --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The guy copied something from someone else's work >>> to use in his own. >>> So he was trying to save himself some work. >>> I've no problem with that.
>> I have always assumed he was given full permission >> to reuse anything in the document he received.
> In that case the person giving him such permission has acted > criminally, by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. > Very simple, IMHO.
>>>>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into >>>>>> quite some of my designs with which the only option I have now is >>>>>> to recapture their schemas from scratch!" >>> [...]
>>>> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >>>> see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >>>> imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an >>>> illegal copy. But as I said, in the same way if you receive a fake >>>> 100-Euro bill the same thing can happen in that the cashier at the >>>> Hema store refuses it and you have no rights other than sue the guy >>>> who gave it to you. >>> From the above it sounds more like they won't accept the fake bill *and >>> then they confiscate all your genuine money too*.
>>> If it just rejected the part with a warning "part MC68HC11 created with >>> illegal copy", and allowed you to delete it, that would be more >>> reasonable. Why deliberatly infect the designs of honest customers?
>> We don't know whether it was just a model. Sounds more like part of a >> schematic.
>>>> CAD companies must pay their employees, pay into their health plan, >>>> pay rent, heating, taxes and, oh, preferably turn a little >>>> profit. Cadsoft's way of protection is, for me, definitely superior to >>>> other alternatives such as MAC-lock or those dreaded dongles. >>> I agree it is better, but that does not make it acceptable.
>>> IMO one of the great advantages of using a product like Eagle with good >>> community support would have been the ability to share libraries with >>> other users. But this is unthinkable given the above.
>> Do we know it was actually a library part alone that caused this?
> It was a voltage regulator, apparantly. I am not familiar with Eagle so > don't know whether this would normally be a "library part" or a circuit > fragment.
Quote from the original thread: "I downloaded a little Eagle project somewhere from a website I can't even remember. It happened that back then, I reused a very small part of this schema (with copy and paste) in one of my projects and continued to copy and paste the same part from my project into a couple of other projects of mine later on."
That sounds more like a chunk of schematic, not just one library part. This is exactly how rumors start and can get totally out of hand :-)
I don't know where the poster is from but apparently Europe and folks in France and NL use the word schema for schematic diagram.
JeffM wrote: >> JeffM wrote: >>> I have always assumed he was given full permission >>> to reuse anything in the document he received.
> Joerg wrote: >> In that case the person giving him such permission has acted criminally, >> by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. Very simple, IMHO.
> You and I will never see eye to eye on "intellectual property". > e.g. In a time when tools make the creative process ever easier, > I see the ever-increasing time spans in laws > as a perversion of the intent of The Founding Fathers: > http://google.com/search?q=cache:xOpHk86NJYUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
See? So they could keep this for 120 years :-)
> ...and a remote kill switch THAT ISN'T REVEALED > is more than just bad faith; it is a breach of contract law.
AFAIK not in the US and not in most other Western countries. In the same way that a crook was caught yesterday when he stole a Land Rover and drove himself to his court (!) appointment. The car had a LoJack installed, so ...
JeffM wrote: >>JeffM wrote: >>>I have always assumed he was given full permission >>>to reuse anything in the document he received.
> Joerg wrote: >>In that case the person giving him such permission has acted >>criminally, by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. >>Very simple, IMHO.
> You and I will never see eye to eye on "intellectual property". > e.g. In a time when tools make the creative process ever easier, > I see the ever-increasing time spans in laws > as a perversion of the intent of The Founding Fathers:
> ...and a remote kill switch THAT ISN'T REVEALED > is more than just bad faith; it is a breach of contract law.
Quote from original. "I downloaded a little Eagle project somewhere from a website I can't even remember. It happened that back then, I reused a very small part of this schema (with copy and paste) in one of my projects and continued to copy and paste the same part from my project into a couple of other projects of mine later on. I forgot the schema I downloaded from said website"
Quote from <http://google.com/search?q=define:plagiarist> --> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarist. "Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. ..."
>>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>>>> JeffM wrote: >>>>>>>>> The product called Cadsoft EAGLE is infected with DRM. >>>>>>>>> If you give it the opportunity, >>>>>>>>> it will lock you out of your work product. >>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/TheEAGLE-Virus >>>>>>> Baron wrote: >>>>>>>> Total bull !
>>>>>>> Your statement shows you to be a fool of few words >>>>>>> and of fewer actual ideas. >>>>>>> I suggest a reading comprehension course.
>>>>>>> Markus described the whole sad tale. >>>>>> Quote "... just because I once copied a voltage regulator (I think it >>>>>> was) out of a design which aparently was made by some third party with a >>>>>> cracked version."
>>>>>> A few sentences later, quote "This evil schema part creaped into quite >>>>>> some of my designs with which the only option I have now is to recapture >>>>>> their schemas from scratch!" >>>>> If this is true, then Cadsoft should be avoided. A piece of software >>>>> should not throw away or cripple files under any circumstance. If it >>>>> does, it is useless. Period.
>>>> When it comes to importing stuff that was made with illegal hackware I >>>> see that differently. This case was unfortunate in that the guy who >>>> imported it obviously did not know that the designer had used an illegal >>> That is why Cadsoft's behaviour is illegal under Dutch law. If you buy >>> something in Holland which appears to be stolen you'll still be the >>> rightful owner UNLESS you could have suspected you bought stolen goods >>> (ridiculous low price, weird circumstances, etc). ...
>> Well, Dutch law seems to be, ahem, strange. AFAIK in pretty much any >> other Western country you'd be required to hand over the stolen goods.
>> So if someone steals your car and sells it, can the new "owner" really >> keep it when the Rijkspolitie stops him and finds out?
> If the new owner can proof he bought the car in good faith, he can > keep it. This is about limiting the number of victims to a crime. > Besides most people are insured against theft over here.
That is the perfect recipe to instill the thought that crime does pay. Not good at all. Even many honest people will be taught by such laws to "look the other way" when buying an iPhone or a Rolex from the guy with the tattoos on the street corner because he has those "super deals". Because they get to keep it no matter what. I am glad we do not have such a law.
>>> ... Markus got the >>> schematic symbol in good faith and had no reason to doubt it. So >>> Markus is not part of the crime.
>> No, he is the victim of a criminal act committed by someone else.
> A crime he had nothin to do with. So why should he be punished? Its > not like in the war where they shot a few innocent people to set an > example.
Nope. You need to restrict the use of data material to that from trusted sources. Or would you download some software just from anywhere?
>>> Cadsoft really should get to the root of the problem (for example by >>> disabling illegal copies) instead of incriminating their paying >>> customers. ...
>> If you find the silver bullet in how to disable illegal copies I am sure >> they would offer you a lucrative job instantly. But then you'd have to >> move and learn Bavarian :-)
> There is always the lmlicense manager. Not ideal but it does work and > has become an industry standard for a reason. Probably too expensive > for Cadsoft or the 'not invented here' syndrome got in the way.
What license manager? The only alternatievs I saw in the CAD world are MAC-lock and dongles. Both very cumbersome, at least for folks who must travel like myself.
Michael A. Terrell wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> Joerg wrote: >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> [...]
>>>>>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >>>>>>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>>>>>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe. >>>>> The car, or the driver?
>>>> Depending on your driving style to the place possibly both. Sometimes >>>> the driver doesn't pass and then gets a ride in the sheriff's car.
>>> Another good reason to live in Florida. No state income tax, and >>> very few insane state laws.
>> How's the weather there this time of year? Have to go on a biz trip, >> West Palm Beach. On the news it looked like parts of FL were flooding >> but don't remember where. Do I have to bring waders and rain gear?
> A few clouds here today with the high in the mid 70s and the low in > the hig 40s. I haven't heard of any floding on the news lately, but > today was mostly about the shootings in Orlando. About five hours of > coverage, so far.
>>>JeffM wrote: >>>>I have always assumed he was given full permission >>>>to reuse anything in the document he received.
>> Joerg wrote: >>>In that case the person giving him such permission has acted >>>criminally, by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. >>>Very simple, IMHO.
>> You and I will never see eye to eye on "intellectual property". >> e.g. In a time when tools make the creative process ever easier, >> I see the ever-increasing time spans in laws >> as a perversion of the intent of The Founding Fathers:
>> ...and a remote kill switch THAT ISN'T REVEALED >> is more than just bad faith; it is a breach of contract law.
> Quote from original. > "I downloaded a little Eagle project somewhere from a > website I can't even remember. It happened that back then, I reused a > very small part of this schema (with copy and paste) in one of my > projects and continued to copy and paste the same part from my project > into a couple of other projects of mine later on. I forgot the schema > I downloaded from said website"
> Quote from <http://google.com/search?q=define:plagiarist> > --> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarist. > "Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged > Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts > of another author and the representation of them as one's own original > work. ..."
So the actions quoted are clearly not plagiarism. There is no evidence that he acted illegally or was passing off someone elses work as his own.
Unless you think anyone who uses a 3rd party library is a plagiarist?
John Devereux wrote: > Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> writes:
>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>JeffM wrote: >>>>>I have always assumed he was given full permission >>>>>to reuse anything in the document he received.
>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>In that case the person giving him such permission has acted >>>>criminally, by creating this work with an illegal copy of software. >>>>Very simple, IMHO.
>>> You and I will never see eye to eye on "intellectual property". >>> e.g. In a time when tools make the creative process ever easier, >>> I see the ever-increasing time spans in laws >>> as a perversion of the intent of The Founding Fathers:
>>> ...and a remote kill switch THAT ISN'T REVEALED >>> is more than just bad faith; it is a breach of contract law.
>> Quote from original. >> "I downloaded a little Eagle project somewhere from a >> website I can't even remember. It happened that back then, I reused a >> very small part of this schema (with copy and paste) in one of my >> projects and continued to copy and paste the same part from my >> project into a couple of other projects of mine later on. I forgot >> the schema I downloaded from said website"
>> Quote from <http://google.com/search?q=define:plagiarist> >> --> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarist. >> "Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged >> Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and >> thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's >> own original work. ..."
> So the actions quoted are clearly not plagiarism. There is no evidence > that he acted illegally or was passing off someone elses work as his > own.
> Unless you think anyone who uses a 3rd party library is a plagiarist?
There is no mention of "library". He was using someone else's work ! Whether that work was done using a cracked copy of Eagle or not. Its doubtful that he attributed anything to the original source. Had he done so, then he could rightly argue about damage to his own work. By his own admission he continued to use work that wasn't his to use.
> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > Joerg wrote: > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>> Joerg wrote: > >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>> Joerg wrote: > >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: > >>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats > >>>>>>> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
> >>>>>> Out here they still hang a probe into the tail pipe. > >>>>> The car, or the driver?
> >>>> Depending on your driving style to the place possibly both. Sometimes > >>>> the driver doesn't pass and then gets a ride in the sheriff's car.
> >>> Another good reason to live in Florida. No state income tax, and > >>> very few insane state laws.
> >> How's the weather there this time of year? Have to go on a biz trip, > >> West Palm Beach. On the news it looked like parts of FL were flooding > >> but don't remember where. Do I have to bring waders and rain gear?
> > A few clouds here today with the high in the mid 70s and the low in > > the hig 40s. I haven't heard of any floding on the news lately, but > > today was mostly about the shootings in Orlando. About five hours of > > coverage, so far.
> If the new owner can proof he bought the car in good faith, he can > keep it. This is about limiting the number of victims to a crime. > Besides most people are insured against theft over here.
If the insurance company has paid for the loss, they own it.
>> If the new owner can proof he bought the car in good faith, he can >> keep it. This is about limiting the number of victims to a crime. >> Besides most people are insured against theft over here.
> If the insurance company has paid for the loss, they own it.
Leftist weenies don't care about insurance companies' property. Didn't you get the memo? They're evil so have no rights.
> We don't know whether it was just a model. Sounds more like part of a > schematic.
Yes, and remember please. The guy imported this peace of s... in earlier versions. After updating he was blocked with all these designs that included the piece of s... only because this guy made a copy &paste of a simple power supply part from a sheet that was shared in the community. And because this worked well for long time there was no sign not do this. IMHO way eagle do this kind opf copy protection is really unacceptable. But as long as there are powerful alternatives I don't see any reason why a big community stays on eagle. Wrong: I know it: There are many "free" versions around. And a lot of "owners" use the free one. This was initiated from Cadsoft workers (the CEO himself AFAIR) by writing and selling Handbooks starting from: "How to install Eagle" without any part of software. That is IMHO the invitation to any "free user" that 1st there is a hacked version available and 2nd please search and use it Doing this way they established a program to lots of users that knows how to design their Boards with eagle, that has a very different way to do this. So the investment to learn again with other software will be big enough that a company will buy the software and accept their employers to use it.
Thats not the smart way of selling. I will never use such software.
>> We don't know whether it was just a model. Sounds more like part of a >> schematic.
> Yes, and remember please. The guy imported this peace of s... in earlier > versions. After updating he was blocked with all these designs that included > the piece of s... only because this guy made a copy &paste of a simple power > supply part from a sheet that was shared in the community. And because this > worked well for long time there was no sign not do this. IMHO way eagle do > this kind opf copy protection is really unacceptable. But as long as there > are powerful alternatives I don't see any reason why a big community stays > on eagle. Wrong: I know it: There are many "free" versions around. And a lot > of "owners" use the free one. This was initiated from Cadsoft workers (the > CEO himself AFAIR) by writing and selling Handbooks starting from: "How to > install Eagle" without any part of software. That is IMHO the invitation to > any "free user" that > 1st there is a hacked version available and > 2nd please search and use it > Doing this way they established a program to lots of users that knows how to > design their Boards with eagle, that has a very different way to do this. So > the investment to learn again with other software will be big enough that a > company will buy the software and accept their employers to use it.
> Thats not the smart way of selling. I will never use such software.
I doubt they wanted to encourage clandestine use. There is a free version of Eagle with some limits but good enough and legit for hobby use. However, of course you do not get a handbook unless you buy one somewhere or live with a PDF file. I have never used the free version except to try it out before buying but I do not believe schematics created with this free version would cause DRM issues. What causes the issues is when someone uses a hacked version of the full layout package, because that is hardcore illegal.
For some reason I never had any such problems in all the years I use Eagle. So, what CAD are you using?
|
