Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.If you own it do what you want.
Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.
Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.Right, best not risk it :palm:
Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth?
In order for an EULA to be valid, the purchaser would need to agree to it, before the transaction occurs, otherwise the only thing which protects the software is standard copyright law, which says making copies is prohibited, other than for backup purposes.
When installing software, it displays the EULA on the screen, saying that the purchaser has the right to return it, in an exchange for a refund, if they disagree with it. The problem is, in the UK, software isn't covered by the distance selling regulations, which say the purchaser has the right to return the goods and get refunded if they're unhappy with them and many shops refuse returns on software, unless the media is damaged, presumably to guard against piracy. I haven't heard of any legal cases of someone returning software because they disagree with the EULA and the shop refusing to refund them.
There was a big flamewar about this awhile ago. I'll search for it and update this post, unless anyone finds it before me.
This is why open source hardware and software is preferable to closed, IMHO.
Here in the UK, that isn't an issue for goods bought online, as the distance selling regulations apply to hardware, such as laptops, so it's possible to returned it for a refund in that case, irrespective of whether it's faulty or not. Buying from a physical shop might be different though.In order for an EULA to be valid, the purchaser would need to agree to it, before the transaction occurs, otherwise the only thing which protects the software is standard copyright law, which says making copies is prohibited, other than for backup purposes.
When installing software, it displays the EULA on the screen, saying that the purchaser has the right to return it, in an exchange for a refund, if they disagree with it. The problem is, in the UK, software isn't covered by the distance selling regulations, which say the purchaser has the right to return the goods and get refunded if they're unhappy with them and many shops refuse returns on software, unless the media is damaged, presumably to guard against piracy. I haven't heard of any legal cases of someone returning software because they disagree with the EULA and the shop refusing to refund them.
There was a big flamewar about this awhile ago. I'll search for it and update this post, unless anyone finds it before me.
This happens in the US too. There was a large rally protesting about laptops being sold with Microsoft Windows. A very large number of people clicked "NO" to the EULA and returned to the shop and asked for a refund for the windows license. They were refused. They held a rally in protest and (IIRC) a LOT of people showed up. For PR Microsoft sent a rep who basically said, "Sorry be bone you, but tough shit, no refund."
I don't know how they get away with it, but basically as the retailer installs the OS OEM style as part of the package they will not partially refund it you just can't get your money back even if you don't accept the license. You can return the laptop of "Faulty" of course, but if it's not faulty they have the right to return it to you with no refund.
They did for a while (not sure if they still do) use EULA bags on software which basically says if you break the seal you accept the license.
Any agreement that you make with the manufacturer is subject to the laws of your country. In the agreement signed, you might have promised the manufacturer to not reverse engineer their product or to not hack it, but if reverse engineering or hacking the device is not a crime in your country, that signed agreement will be void.
The USA has the most fascist laws in this respect. The DMCA, and software patents, means you can be subject to a lawsuits by another company by doing the above things. And when that happens, whoever has more money will win.
The transaction between the user and the manufacturer appears to be:
"I'll buy your gadget and expect you to support it with hardware repair and possibly firmware upgrades during the agreed to warranty period".
And on the manufacturer's side:
"We'll sell you this gadget with the expectation that you will use it within the constraints imposed in our agreement".
If you violate those constraints then you can't have the expectation that the manufacturer then has the obligation to continue their support.
IMHO the bottom line is that you can do whatever you want to your scope (or for the most part just about anything else) BUT if in doing so you do something that you then want the manufacturer to fix for you without cost (i.e. bricking it) you may be SOL. It's all a matter of risk management on your part.
IMHO the bottom line is that you can do whatever you want to your scope (or for the most part just about anything else) BUT if in doing so you do something that you then want the manufacturer to fix for you without cost (i.e. bricking it) you may be SOL. It's all a matter of risk management on your part.
Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.
QuoteIMHO the bottom line is that you can do whatever you want to your scope (or for the most part just about anything else) BUT if in doing so you do something that you then want the manufacturer to fix for you without cost (i.e. bricking it) you may be SOL. It's all a matter of risk management on your part.
Unless it's Lenovo. Remember when Louis poured a bottle of water on his laptop and sent it in for repairs and they fixed it UNDER WARRANTY!
Many manufactures will go above and beyond their legal obligations, in order to keep customers, Still be careful with your laptop. Don't try pulling this one too often, otherwise they might stop being so nice.QuoteIMHO the bottom line is that you can do whatever you want to your scope (or for the most part just about anything else) BUT if in doing so you do something that you then want the manufacturer to fix for you without cost (i.e. bricking it) you may be SOL. It's all a matter of risk management on your part.
Unless it's Lenovo. Remember when Louis poured a bottle of water on his laptop and sent it in for repairs and they fixed it UNDER WARRANTY!
They did this with my X201 when I poured a cup of coffee in it and wrecked the screen. In fact they sent a replacement out and asked me to swap the disks and put the return one in the box. Bear in mind the only side effect from pouring a whole cup of coffee in it was a dull section of the LCD screen!
C'mon guys & gals ... the OP is just asking a simple question and expecting answer either YES or NO.Are you a lawyer?
Reason is quite obvious, he/she is in the middle hesitation and unclear what to decide.
To OP .. here my answer ...Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.YES !
Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?Can anyone point to some specific legislation that would make it illegal ?
Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?Can anyone point to some specific legislation that would make it illegal ?
You can even make money from the ?quired knowledge by making other peoples product work better.
That was about selling circumvention devices, not using themAre you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?Can anyone point to some specific legislation that would make it illegal ?
See my post regards UK EU. The test case related to hacking a game system to play other regions games normally administratively disabled.
You can even make money from the ?quired knowledge by making other peoples product work better.
No, this is were you will get the attention of the law. Certainly a civil case from the manufacturer. As in the linked Nintendo case. Technically though they were selling the mod chip.
Ridol ARE losing out. Assuming they sell the higher spec scope for a higher price, then by buying the lower spec'ed model and hacking it they lose out on revenue that you would have spent on the higher model.
Technically with software it all come down to the license. If the software has 100 features and you only bought a license to use 1 of them, then you hack it or use an illegal keygen to unlock the remaining 99 you are using unlicensed software. In the UK this would be a civil offence and it's very unlikely anything would come of it for an individual basis.
Just to note when you buy it, all options are enabled for 30 hours or so anyway.
The difficulty there is proof that you did actually agree to it. In many cases it is possible to build a 'sysprepped' image of software which installs automatically without asking any questions at all. Since there is no way of telling if that was how it was installed, it cannot be assumed that you did in fact agree to the EULA.
That is technically against the Microsoft license. That has been tested in court. A charity was setting up and planning on donating recycled PCs to schools in Africa. Microsoft intervened and stopped them as windows was still installed and as an absolutely minimum to transfer the license the install needed resys-prepped to display the EULA screen at next restart (an option on the sysprep command). It turned out that employing engineers to sys prep all the PCs would cost the charity too much money and made the scheme unworkable and it was scrapped.
This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.Practically all open source is licensed (e.g. the L in GPL stands for License). You still have to check if the license is compatible with your use case and that the license is understood and accepted by your lawyers.
This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.
C'mon guys & gals ... the OP is just asking a simple question and expecting answer either YES or NO.Are you a lawyer?
Reason is quite obvious, he/she is in the middle hesitation and unclear what to decide.
To OP .. here my answer ...Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.YES !
Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?
I'm not a lawyer. I'm pretty sure that unlocking an oscilloscope for private, non-commercial, use will not get you in trouble because of the practicalities of the manufacture finding out and pursuing you.
Morally speaking, I have no problem with unlocking an oscilloscope, whether it be for private, commercial use, or to resell. I think the manufacturer is immoral, if they actively cripple their product. Of course, this is totally different to what the law might permit: for example, if you do it on a large scale, it's quite likely the manufacturer will pursue you.
Note that I can't speak for others, as far as the moral argument is concerned. There are those with the total opposite view, who see hacking an oscilloscope to access features one hasn't paid for, as immoral. Then there are those who think hacking is fine for non-commercial purposes. Not to mention many other various viewpoints intbetween There's no point in discussing whether hacking an oscilloscope is moral or not. It's like arguing about religion. Again I refer to the flame thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/)
The GPL does not require that the GPL's source be given to all and sundry. Only that it be given to persons who own something that uses that software. So there is no legal basis for demanding the GPL'd source for something you do not own. However, there is no restriction on your giving the software to other persons.
Say, a stub program links to GPL code is made open source, and the sole purpose of such a program is to IPC to a proprietary program, so basically the closed source program mmaps to the open source stub program, and use mutex to control the flow of data. That allows for remote function calling without having to link to the GPLed code.
Anyway, there is no need. If open source software provides an API which allows you to use it without modifying it's source code, the license does NOT transfer. Your code can remain closed source while using open source libraries. libdl (Lib Dynamic Load) is perfectly supported without license transfer. It is only the scaremongering that has drawn this into question and it has never been tested in court as it's bonkers. It would make EVERYTHING open source if true.
Your webapp uses PHP. PHP is open source GPL, so does that make your web app open source? PHP can access Microsoft SQL Server, does that make Microsoft SQL Server open source? Microsoft release "Tools for Unix" which runs on Linux and links against glibc which is GPL, does that make Microsoft Tools for Unix open source. Of course not.
3. PHP talks to web server and db server via IPC like socket or pipe or stub library. PHP never directly calls MSSQL main library. A PHP script is being interpreted by PHP, it doesn't directly call any PHP interpreter's code directly using any ABI.
1. It makes sense. You can easily share memory and signals, but that still requires some coding to synchronize. I'm talking about a fully automated framework that allows you to call a remote function like a local function, and the framework should contain all details under the hood. Basically you tell the framework code generator that you want to call a function in xxx.dll, with calling schema like "int a(int, char*, int, float)", then the framework generates a stub program xxx.exe, and a stub function in xxx.c and xxx.h, then you just include xxx.h into your program and it's good to call it as a local function.
The more prime example is a commercial application running on Linux, such as any number of high value closed source applications. including Salsae Logic software. These all MUST at some point link with the basic GNU/GPL core libraries such as glibc which is 100% pure GPL.
Glibc and Kernel (for LKMs) are GPL with exemption. When a linked work is using them to provide basic OS functionality and not an extension or addition to OS itself, then it's not considered derived work.
paul@localhost ~/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit) $ ldd Logic
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd4a7ce000)
libAnalyzer.so => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libAnalyzer.so (0x00007fedea304000)
libQt5Network.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Network.so.5 (0x00007fede9fa4000)
libQt5Sql.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Sql.so.5 (0x00007fede9d5c000)
libQt5Widgets.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Widgets.so.5 (0x00007fede950c000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fede9304000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007fede90e4000)
librt.so.1 => /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x00007fede8edc000)
libQt5Gui.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Gui.so.5 (0x00007fede8734000)
libQt5Core.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Core.so.5 (0x00007fede8014000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.4.0/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00007fede7c14000)
libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007fede790c000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.4.0/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007fede76f4000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fede7344000)
libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007fede712c000)
libGL.so.1 => /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGL.so.1 (0x00007fede6e84000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fedea5cc000)
libicui18n.so.56 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libicui18n.so.56 (0x00007fede69e4000)
libicuuc.so.56 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libicuuc.so.56 (0x00007fede662c000)
libicudata.so.56 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libicudata.so.56 (0x00007fede4c44000)
libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x00007fede4a3c000)
libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00007fede4724000)
libGLX.so.0 => /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGLX.so.0 (0x00007fede44f4000)
libGLdispatch.so.0 => /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGLdispatch.so.0 (0x00007fede4224000)
libpcre.so.1 => /lib64/libpcre.so.1 (0x00007fede3fac000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 (0x00007fede3c6c000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXext.so.6 (0x00007fede3a54000)
libxcb.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libxcb.so.1 (0x00007fede3824000)
libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXau.so.6 (0x00007fede361c000)
libXdmcp.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXdmcp.so.6 (0x00007fede3414000)
libbsd.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libbsd.so.0 (0x00007fede31fc000)
The more prime example is a commercial application running on Linux, such as any number of high value closed source applications. including Salsae Logic software. These all MUST at some point link with the basic GNU/GPL core libraries such as glibc which is 100% pure GPL.
Glibc and Kernel (for LKMs) are GPL with exemption. When a linked work is using them to provide basic OS functionality and not an extension or addition to OS itself, then it's not considered derived work.
Here is the output of the linking required by "Logic" from saleae:Code: [Select]paul@localhost ~/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit) $ ldd Logic
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffd4a7ce000)
libAnalyzer.so => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libAnalyzer.so (0x00007fedea304000)
libQt5Network.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Network.so.5 (0x00007fede9fa4000)
libQt5Sql.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Sql.so.5 (0x00007fede9d5c000)
libQt5Widgets.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Widgets.so.5 (0x00007fede950c000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fede9304000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007fede90e4000)
librt.so.1 => /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x00007fede8edc000)
libQt5Gui.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Gui.so.5 (0x00007fede8734000)
libQt5Core.so.5 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libQt5Core.so.5 (0x00007fede8014000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.4.0/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00007fede7c14000)
libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007fede790c000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.4.0/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007fede76f4000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fede7344000)
libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007fede712c000)
libGL.so.1 => /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGL.so.1 (0x00007fede6e84000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fedea5cc000)
libicui18n.so.56 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libicui18n.so.56 (0x00007fede69e4000)
libicuuc.so.56 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libicuuc.so.56 (0x00007fede662c000)
libicudata.so.56 => /home/paul/devel/logic_analyser/Logic 1.2.17 (64-bit)/libicudata.so.56 (0x00007fede4c44000)
libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x00007fede4a3c000)
libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00007fede4724000)
libGLX.so.0 => /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGLX.so.0 (0x00007fede44f4000)
libGLdispatch.so.0 => /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/libGLdispatch.so.0 (0x00007fede4224000)
libpcre.so.1 => /lib64/libpcre.so.1 (0x00007fede3fac000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 (0x00007fede3c6c000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXext.so.6 (0x00007fede3a54000)
libxcb.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libxcb.so.1 (0x00007fede3824000)
libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXau.so.6 (0x00007fede361c000)
libXdmcp.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXdmcp.so.6 (0x00007fede3414000)
libbsd.so.0 => /usr/lib64/libbsd.so.0 (0x00007fede31fc000)
I'm fairly sure most of those are GPL libraries. You will get similar results for most commercial applications on Linux. Can you provide an example of the FSF taking anyone to court for linking creating a derived work?
I note they are shipping the QT Runtimes. These are not GPL, they are usually a lot worse. The QT license is weird. I can't remember why but it was flagged on several legal license reports I seen.
QT is LGPL, so it is perfectly fine that they have dynamically linked to it. I don't actually see a GPL'ed library in that list.
EDIT: see here https://www.qt.io/licensing-comparison/ (https://www.qt.io/licensing-comparison/)
" These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. "
Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License[3], glibc is free software.
QT5 is under LGPL with few optional modules under GPL, but it also has a commercial version that can be statically linked. The modules they linked (Core, GUI, Network, SQL and Widgets) are all LGPL with 3rd party permissive licensed components.
The USA has the most fascist laws in this respect. The DMCA, and software patents, means you can be subject to a lawsuits by another company by doing the above things. And when that happens, whoever has more money will win.
This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.
As someone who has been on the end of license audit a couple of times from MSFT, you can’t be compliant however hard you try. Last time it cost us a fair whack of cash because of a technicality in where something was installed.
On the subject of open source licenses, anything I’ve provided is either BSD, MIT or Apache 2 license. If we ship code it has to be one of those licenses or internally written. On our own SaaS stuff, doesn’t matter. It’s only distribution that GPL gives an ass ache on.
No. You don't have to open source derived works of a BSD/MIT/Apache library. they are called permissive licenses for a reason.
All you have to do for using BSD/MIT is to credit them and to promise if shit happens, you are not holding the authors liable.
I can't say this for GPL/AGPL, though.
Interesting read:This of course makes the assumption that the purchaser would have been prepared to have paid for the higher spec'ed model. If they were already towards the top end of their budget, then they simply wouldn't buy the higher priced unit.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-598-3565?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
Note the section on "Circumventing effective technological measures" is widely open to interpretation.
Again though I don't expect anything would come to an end user for hacking his or her scope/game system. They will however seek people who are hacking them and then selling them, or selling hacking kits.
Ridol ARE losing out. Assuming they sell the higher spec scope for a higher price, then by buying the lower spec'ed model and hacking it they lose out on revenue that you would have spent on the higher model.
There was a classic case of this a few decades back when Windows NT came out. It came in two editions. NT Server and NT Workstation. When someone discovered that the software was identical but the price vastly different and there was a single bit flag which switched the server edition into being a workstation they tried to complain. I can't remember if they actually took Microsoft to court, but it was put to bed anyway with Microsoft rightly claiming they can sell you partly disabled software for cheaper price if they wish. This is a very common practice today.That case just deals with software. Some of the Rigol hacks are just to access extra hardware, such as more memory, which probably not covered by copyright law. It's questionable, whether all aspects of software are copyrightable, since algorithms are not covered by copyright, only patents and there are a limited ways of implementing the same algorithm. This question came up in the other thread I referred to earlier, when a printer company attempted to use a software lock out to prevent refilled/third party cartridges from being used.
This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.
As someone who has been on the end of license audit a couple of times from MSFT, you can’t be compliant however hard you try. Last time it cost us a fair whack of cash because of a technicality in where something was installed.
Having a serious effect on my business, as the effort in sorting out the licensing insanity for even a single Windows server can involve more work than actually deploying it. It's not only the cost, but the wasted time involved. It also causes security and operability issues, for example we can't allow remote access to Windows 7/10 virtual machines without a special license so we have to allow remote access to hardware instead.
The latest licensing moves are threatening to virtually end the market for third party Windows server software. For example you can now no longer deploy a mailserver on Windows unless the server has a CAL for every email account. When you consider there is no legal basis whatsoever for these restrictions, it really is getting past a joke.
I too would rather deploy open source, but not all clients want to go that way.
I'm wondering if an approach to Donald Tump might be productive in putting an end to this. He's demonstrated a zero tolerance attitude to nonsense of similar kinds. Perhaps a petition?
I was referring to GPL/LGPL specifically. The advantage of GPL is that Microsoft could in principle take a popular 'permissive license' product and start selling a restrictive license version, without seeking permission. They can't do that with a GPL product. Reprofiler is possibly a case in point since I don't think Redmond has any equivalent utility even now. There is also nothing in the GPL that prevents the author from releasing a closed source derivative provided that it contains no third party GPL code.
The only way they can succeed now is to go with the subscription model i.e. Office 365 and total AD integration. Then you end up with a company full of dumb terminals with local capital cost with a monthly fee.
That's too horrible. Just to state my opinion, I'm gonna be totally happy to pay Altium another $8360 if they roll out a native Linux or macOS version, because Altium Designer is the only barrier between me and *nix.
Nope. Not all countries have British type jurisdiction. For example, where I'm from, the accusing party have to file an indictment, which is first valued. If you had no wrongdoing, you dont even hear about the indictment.The USA has the most fascist laws in this respect. The DMCA, and software patents, means you can be subject to a lawsuits by another company by doing the above things. And when that happens, whoever has more money will win.
Doesn't matter what country you are in, you can be sued at any time for any thing under the sun. Doesn't matter if they don't stand a chance in hell of winning, expensive lawyers can tie you up until you go bankrupt.
C'mon guys & gals ... the OP is just asking a simple question and expecting answer either YES or NO.Are you a lawyer?
Reason is quite obvious, he/she is in the middle hesitation and unclear what to decide.
To OP .. here my answer ...Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.YES !
Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?
I'm not a lawyer. I'm pretty sure that unlocking an oscilloscope for private, non-commercial, use will not get you in trouble because of the practicalities of the manufacture finding out and pursuing you.
Morally speaking, I have no problem with unlocking an oscilloscope, whether it be for private, commercial use, or to resell. I think the manufacturer is immoral, if they actively cripple their product. Of course, this is totally different to what the law might permit: for example, if you do it on a large scale, it's quite likely the manufacturer will pursue you.
Note that I can't speak for others, as far as the moral argument is concerned. There are those with the total opposite view, who see hacking an oscilloscope to access features one hasn't paid for, as immoral. Then there are those who think hacking is fine for non-commercial purposes. Not to mention many other various viewpoints intbetween There's no point in discussing whether hacking an oscilloscope is moral or not. It's like arguing about religion. Again I refer to the flame thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/)
Stop beating around the bush will ya ?
What does my status as a lawyer or not, has to do with this ? If I am, would you shut up ? Unlikely right ? :palm:
Also now you brought out the moral word ?
To me, morally, after your many-many-many posts here, you still owe the OP the answer, just plain YES or NO.
And once you've answered, then you can start making noises about your answer.
indeed. Paid off for them as we bought 200x T420’s on the back of that event.
Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth?
You bought it, you can do whatever you want to it in the privacy of your own home.
Rigor surely expects the scopes to be hacked. Why else would they include four expensive 500MHz probes with the 100MHz scopes in the 4000 series?
I was referring to GPL/LGPL specifically. The advantage of GPL is that Microsoft could in principle take a popular 'permissive license' product and start selling a restrictive license version, without seeking permission. They can't do that with a GPL product.Everything depends on your goals. If you are on a mission to try and make all software free, GPL is great. If not, well, GPL doesn't offer any special advantage. If you are the author of a GPL licensed program you still won't earn anything out of products from other manufacturers using your code. The benefit (or not) of GPL is in derivative code and forcing to share it with the community. Nothing else.
I just downgraded my hacked DS1054Z.
It's now a 1974 Tek 465. It's quieter, the user interface is better, it has about 60% function coverage of the DS1054Z for 8.6% of the cost, the probes aren't made of gnat hair, there is a service manual and no moral dilemmas on licensing included. Plus there's a button I can pull out if I want 20MHz of artifically limited bandwidth :-+
I can see the advantage to Microsoft of the subscription model. Many sites use very old Office software, for example there are even some copies of Office 97 still in use. Hence they only get paid once in a decade or two by such people. Subs mean the customers have to keep upgrading, and paying for the latest.That advantage to Microsoft translates directly into a disadvantage for the customer. The benefit of making yourself much more dependent on the whims of another party is an added bonus. Being critically dependent on a whole assortment of suppliers who can just decide to pull the plug from one day to the next or go bankrupt with the same result doesn't seem to be a good business practice at all. That can happen now too, but production shouldn't suddenly grind to a halt overnight.
That, and a per-user per-month figure sounds cheaper than paying upfront until you get out the calculator and see how costly it actually is. :wtf:
Realistically that's the status quo though for all businesses. If you find somewhere that you can create profit efficiently which doesn't rely on a supply chain I'm interested.Depending on supply chains isn't the problem. These being critical to everyday operations and them potentially being gone from one day to the next is. Migrating your systems from one developer to the next can be painful and potentially company ending, but as soon as you can't continue to operate without doing so your chances of success are slim to none. Whether it's your IT infrastructure or stuffing all of your IP into a CAD cloud, things can go wrong very quickly. The more parties you depend on, the more likely it is this will happen sooner or later.
At best it's a cost trade-off. It's cheaper to subcontract that out than deal with the complexity. For that you have to rely on trust a little bit.
Please note that I have two distinct personalities: capitalist bastard, Marxist. I'd like to be the latter but I live in a world of the former.
Also lets not forget the "negative marketing ransom" that clients have over companies. You can turn a supplier into a pile of ash with social media these days overnight. I have done it.
Also lets not forget the "negative marketing ransom" that clients have over companies. You can turn a supplier into a pile of ash with social media these days overnight. I have done it.Hmm. Not so easy these days with so much noise and so-called "influences" in Twitter.
It's cheaper to rent their shit via the cloud and O365 than deal with VLK and audits which is what both sides really want.
Not to mention that by 2013 no SMB wanted to keep throwing money at Exchange server disk arrays (I remember someone trying to sell me NetApp for a twelve person office just to deal with Exchange bloat), and MS didn't want to support everyone's particular edge-case of HW/SW integration and legacy data. Now at least it's all in their environment and the HW is abstracted away.
I'm skeptical of overselling 'cloud services' but O365 and AWS are the big exceptions.
The slight irony there is that I contacted Keysight recently to get a spare part and was directed to an office in Spain. :-DD
It also causes security and operability issues, for example we can't allow remote access to Windows 7/10 virtual machines without a special license so we have to allow remote access to hardware instead.
It's time to be a sovereign citizen. You have paid for that Windows copy, you own the license of it. Regardless how MS hates you to put it on remote access, regardless how they disable RDP, you can always install VNC and bypass it. If MS sends your company a letter, tell them to talk to your Glock.