> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:39:57 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Nico Coesel wrote:
> >> 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.
> 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
Shure it was. The free version is available years later than the spoken books.
> Eagle. So, what CAD are you using?
I used Ultiboard since version 5.xx that is pretty old now. When I bought my version they approved that I will get every update free and have to pay only for upgrades. But few releases later the company was sold and the new updates were no more free. I don't know how much more sellings later Ultiboard is part of NI but I don't have anymore practice with it. Later I had to use Protel98se @ work. Pretty ugly compared to Ultiboard at this time. Few Years later the workgroup switchses to Mentor Graphics "Verybest" aka "Expedition PCB" because it is really "cheap" to get if you are member of Europractice. And well: It is the best program I've ever seen in this matter. But these times are gone. Last time I had no pcbs to do so I may wait with new decissions. I played a bit with KICAD that seems to be good enough for me... Hint: If the only thing that you miss is the ugly frame: Just Print via Postscript and remove it ;-)
> I used Ultiboard since version 5.xx that is pretty old now. When I bought my > version they approved that I will get every update free and have to pay only > for upgrades. But few releases later the company was sold and the new > updates were no more free. I don't know how much more sellings later > Ultiboard is part of NI but I don't have anymore practice with it. Later I > had to use Protel98se @ work. Pretty ugly compared to Ultiboard at this > time. Few Years later the workgroup switchses to Mentor Graphics "Verybest" > aka "Expedition PCB" because it is really "cheap" to get if you are member > of Europractice. And well: It is the best program I've ever seen in this > matter. But these times are gone. Last time I had no pcbs to do so I may > wait with new decissions. I played a bit with KICAD that seems to be good > enough for me... > Hint: If the only thing that you miss is the ugly frame: Just Print via > Postscript and remove it ;-)
It also has some auto-numbering issues and auto-numbering is what I need a lot, on every design.
I grew up with Futurenet Dash-2, then Dash-4. After starting self-employed I bought OrCad SDT. That was the best CAD ever made but the Windows versions came with a huge drop in quality, IMHO. So now I am in the market. Eagle is ok but for now not forever because it has no hierarchy.
We have no such thing as Europractice so it's always full price. But a lot of stuff is less expensive over here.
>>>>>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.
So you declare you never ever used a (piece of) circuit from a magazine? Or an application note?
Some IC vendors even offer diagrams in several formats. Is it wrong to use that?
-- 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!" --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>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.
> So you declare you never ever used a (piece of) circuit from a > magazine? Or an application note?
> Some IC vendors even offer diagrams in several formats. Is it wrong to > use that?
Thats hardly the point ! I don't know of a magazine or a vendor that produces an application note etc, that doesn't retain copyright ! But in using their work its normal to attribute the source. Indeed even in "Open Source" work, derived works normally attribute the original.
>>>> 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.
> So you declare you never ever used a (piece of) circuit from a > magazine? Or an application note?
Two very different things. I can honestly say that I have never used a circuit from a magazine for a commercial design, IOW where I get paid for the design. For Hobby, yes I have, as a teenager.
With application notes it is usually encouraged to use the circuits in there because the whole purpose is to promote sales of the underlying devices. It is like using the templates that come with some software.
> Some IC vendors even offer diagrams in several formats. Is it wrong to > use that?
If offered as a suggestion of how to use their product, typically there is no problem. But if in doubt one must still ask.
>>>>>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.
If anyone goes to the touble of putting up an Eagle format CAD file on their web site it seems very likely this is specifically so that other users can benefit from using it. Certainly you cannot just default to assuming any use is plagiarism.
There is no evidence that he acted illegally or was passing off someone elses work as his own.
>>JeffM wrote: >>> Joerg wrote: >>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous.
>>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>> It's still distrust. >>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
>>As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >>work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >>blamed for that.
>>The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >>where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >>find out they will take away your rights to drive that car.
>True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >inspection ;-)
>It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
> ...Jim Thompson
California still runs exhaust gas analyzers, and does not interrogate the ECU.
JosephKK wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:59:40 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:33 -0800, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> >> wrote:
>>> JeffM wrote: >>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>> In contrast to just about any other CAD company I know >>>>> Cadsoft trusts their users. You are given a license code >>>>> and they trust that you won't leak that to others. >>>>> So no dongles, MAC-locks and other such nonsense. >>>>> On top of that they allow you to spool another copy >>>>> onto your laptop for road use, >>>>> at least that's what my license says. >>>>> I find that a very fair policy. >>>>> I challenge you to name any competitor that's this generous. >>>> That's nice as far as it goes--right up to the DRM. >>>> Cadsoft's style of distrust simply takes another form. >>>> It's still distrust. >>>> Their treatment of Markus speaks volumes.
>>> As I said in the part you snipped he has used clandestinely generated >>> work. Probably a perfectly honest mistake but IMHO Cadsoft cannot be >>> blamed for that.
>>> The very same thing would happen if you unknowingly bought a used car >>> where some hacker had tampered with the ECU. When the smog check guys >>> find out they will take away your rights to drive that car. >> True hackers know how to switch back to "factory" settings during >> inspection ;-)
>> It's particularly easy to pass smog tests now that the bureaucrats >> simply plug into an ECU port... dummies ;-)
>> ...Jim Thompson
> California still runs exhaust gas analyzers, ...
Yup. That's how it should be done. Anything else opens the big barn door to fraud, deception and cheating by "We'll make any car pass" sort of shops.
Joerg <n...@analogconsultants.com> wrote: >> California still runs exhaust gas analyzers, ...
>Yup. That's how it should be done. Anything else opens the big barn door >to fraud, deception and cheating by "We'll make any car pass" sort of shops.
>> ... and does not interrogate the ECU.
>They do connect to the jack under the dash.
Checking for fault codes, I would assume. If the ECU has detected misfiring or occasional over-rich operation, I imagine that the car won't pass the inspection, and that a repair and re-test will be ordered.
I don't think that they *trust* the ECU to report any and all possible problems... which, as you say, it how it should be.
-- Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
>>> California still runs exhaust gas analyzers, ...
>>Yup. That's how it should be done. Anything else opens the big barn door >>to fraud, deception and cheating by "We'll make any car pass" sort of shops.
>>> ... and does not interrogate the ECU.
>>They do connect to the jack under the dash.
>Checking for fault codes, I would assume. If the ECU has detected >misfiring or occasional over-rich operation, I imagine that the car >won't pass the inspection, and that a repair and re-test will be >ordered.
>I don't think that they *trust* the ECU to report any and all possible >problems... which, as you say, it how it should be.
Actually, they (they == several states) do. They query the ECU to see that all devices are working properly, which presumes the ECU hasn't been tampered with. Since '96 (could be '97) model years the ECU interface and reporting has been standardized. All pollution devices must report through the under-dash plug.
