Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


nicely

My account has been blocked

Recommended Posts

Sorry, but I don't see any contradiction. If software is available for free by its author, it does not mean that it belongs to you, that you are allowed to do anything you want with it, and that you don't have to respect any rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaclaz said:
4 hours ago, bigmuscle said:

... and yes, files downloaded from my website contain a signature ...

Good to know.
jaclaz

I find it hard to believe you hadn't presumed it, way back when...

4 hours ago, dhjohns said:

A little heavy-handed don't you think @bigmuscle?

Not at all. Rules are just that: rules. When one decides to use the software, one agrees to abide by them, no matter how nonsensical or arbitrary they may be.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dencorso said:

I find it hard to believe you hadn't presumed it, way back when...

... when what? :dubbio:

I don't think I ever downloaded (let alone used) the nice thingy by Bigmuscle, let alone particularly private/experimental builds. 

In any case it could be that it was one of those (long) periods when my crystall ball is in the workshop for maintenance and tuning and I have only I-Ching available, that as you well know I ma not very good with ... ;) 

If I get this right :blink: BigMuscle has embedded in his program a code, let's call it conventionally a "serial number" which makes him able to identify the user :w00t::ph34r:, and - at his discretion, in this case when the user misbehaves, but there could well be other reasons - allows him to identify the user account and block it.

No problem whatsoever with the blocking on the account part, but I have some perplexities about the identifying part. (and on the current "public" discussion on the user behaviours).

 

33 minutes ago, dencorso said:

Not at all. Rules are just that: rules. When one decides to use the software, one agrees to abide by them, no matter how nonsensical or arbitrary they may be.

I concur, though not entirely (i.e. about the nonsensical or arbitrary, though this is seemingly not the case, as it seems to me a more than legit request by an Author to not disseminate particular builds).

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

.. when what?

Whenever you became cognizant that software is not "no-strings-attached do-what-you-want-with-it freeware" but some sort of restricted-circulation donationware. If the author took the trouble to lay any rules, the author must have the means to enforce them or that's an exercise in futility.

12 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

no matter how nonsensical or arbitrary they may be

I don't want to convey the idea that bigmuscle's rules in the present case are specifically either nonsensical or arbitrary, what I meant to say is that rules generally may be fully nonsensical, arbitrary or otherwise preposterous, but once one accepts to abide by them one should be true to it. To do otherwise is sheer bad faith, not any type of misunderstanding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dencorso said:

Whenever you became cognizant that software is not "no-strings-attached do-what-you-want-with-it freeware" but some sort of restricted-circulation donationware. If the author took the trouble to lay any rules, the author must have the means to enforce them or that's an exercise in futility.

Hmmm.

31 minutes ago, dencorso said:

I don't want to convey the idea that bigmuscle's rules in the present case are specifically either nonsensical or arbitrary, 

Which is good, as they are also IMHO not any of such.

The possible issue is IMHO only with the means by which these rules are enforced.

27 minutes ago, dencorso said:

I don't want to convey the idea that bigmuscle's rules in the present case are specifically either nonsensical or arbitrary, what I meant to say is that rules generally may be fully nonsensical, arbitrary or otherwise preposterous, but once one accepts to abide by them one should be true to it. To do otherwise is sheer bad faith, not any type of misunderstanding.

Well, here there are two distinct problems (not specific to the case at hand, only general).

#1 is informed, explicit, consent
#2 is legality of the rules

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

#2 is legality of the rules

It goes without saying that, wherever any specific rule is actually illegal, there it is automagically null-and-void. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dencorso said:

It goes without saying that, wherever any specific rule is actually illegal, there it is automagically null-and-void. :yes:

Yep :), but there are both nullum ab initio and nullum ex lege, they are similar but not exactly the same.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not see what the problem is, all the man did was re-post the original file, it's not like he modified it or tried to claim it as his own or was torrenting the file, it's not even like the file would have given someone a full free version of Aeroglass, the water mark would (or should) have been there regardless.

Virtual Customs has been a friend to Big Muscle for a very long time and a lot of our members contribute to the testing of Aeroglass' beta's. If the man has given a contribution or donation IMO a request for the removal of the file and post from the forum would have sufficed with a warning. I understand rules are rules but there was no harm intended or foul committed here.

As a side note: I am also a contributor to Aeroglass and the fact that I have just found by reading previous posts that there is code embedded into Aeroglass that allows the author to disable the full version software willy-nilly has me concerned, I can understand the author blocking an account and the user not being able to upgrade to future versions for infractions but the ability to disable the full version while it is running on ones system is a little disconcerting and may now affect any future contributions from myself to this software.

 

Edited by DarkKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DarkKnight: no, there is no such code. There is also no code in the software to identify the user, the software does not even interact with "me" in any way. There is only a small signature in debug versions which profile the file was downloaded from.

As to the rules, it is not about MY rules. The rules are simply given by the copyright law which forbids any distribution without the permissions. And even though the user is explicitely informed about this fact on the website, he simply ignored the statement and distributed my software publicly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bigmuscle said:

he simply ignored the statement and distributed my software publicly.

If you look at it from a different perspective @bigmuscle this is what we in the United States call free advertising, and could lead to more donations for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, and what about the red, (bolded by me) part?

 

Quote

If it happens, your account will be disabled and the final release will be delayed for long time.

I simply cannot understand it. :dubbio:

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bigmuscle said:

DarkKnight: no, there is no such code. There is also no code in the software to identify the user, the software does not even interact with "me" in any way. There is only a small signature in debug versions which profile the file was downloaded from.

As to the rules, it is not about MY rules. The rules are simply given by the copyright law which forbids any distribution without the permissions. And even though the user is explicitely informed about this fact on the website, he simply ignored the statement and distributed my software publicly.

Big Muscle, thank you for clearing up the first part about the coding.

As to the rules, I get what you are saying and I COMPLETELY understand if the file that was posted was a fully functioning version of Aeroglass, but this wasn't, I personally downloaded the file both from Virtual Customs and your site also and the only thing in the .7z file is a DWMGlass.dll file, so IMO unless someone already had a copy of Aeroglass installed there really isn't anything or any use for the file that anyone could do anything with and EVEN IF they did have a copy of Aeroglass installed all it would have given them is nothing but a watermarked version of it which anyone can get from your site.

You are the designer and you make the rules so ultimately it is up to you, but my question is, is it really worth it that much to you to ban someones account for a foolish unintended mistake? I have dealt with nicely multiple times at VC and I can assure you this was not intentional, the only thing he is probably guilty of is not reading the fine print.

Just and FYI, the distribution notice graphic that you posted in a previous post, only shows up if the user is logged into their Aeroglass account, however I can download the experimental version file whether I am logged in or not, if this is what you are going to stand by as reason for banning nicely, I would consider making the notice visible whether the user is logged into the site or not as it is very possible he downloaded the file while not being logged in, therefore not seeing it.

Copyright law was written with a very broad brush stroke and can be interpreted a thousand different ways and what you are calling "distribution" IMO simply did not happen. Distribution in my mind would be if the file or a fully functioning version of Aeroglass was being made available on multiple sites, nicely knows that a lot of us at VC also post here and more than likely didn't see any harm in it, if it was nefarious the file would have been plastered all over the place.

If I had a nickel for every time someone re-posted something of mine that I could sue for Copyright, I'd be a very rich man.

Edited by DarkKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DarkKnight: yes, the archive contains only DWMGlass.dll which is complete and fully functional implementation of my Aero Glass. The fact that the archive does not contain installer and user must install/load DLL on its own does not change anything. And even the "completeness" is not absolutely important at all, because the copyright applies even to the parts of the work.

Quote

Just and FYI, the distribution notice graphic that you posted in a previous post, only shows up if the user is logged into their Aeroglass account, however I can download the experimental version file whether I am logged in or not, if this is what you are going to stand by as reason for banning nicely, I would consider making the notice visible whether the user is logged into the site or not as it is very possible he downloaded the file while not being logged in, therefore not seeing it.

I already mentioned this earlier, so just for repetition. Yes, when you are not logged it, the statement is not displayed and you can download only PUBLIC releases. I have no problem if this public release appears somewhere. The problem is that the incriminated version was not public and required login (and thus the statement was displayed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Hmmmm, and what about the red, (bolded by me) part?

 

I simply cannot understand it. :dubbio:

jaclaz

Obviously we are dealing with KBG here.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

I simply cannot understand it. :dubbio:

It's quite clear to me. It means, if one annoys bigmuscle enough he may as well disappear, go use his talents in other endeavours, and let all the users of his program in the rain!  :yes:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×