Bottom line is if they're too damned lazy to even make different versions of the code, but instead deliver the hardware with ALL the software fully functional on it but deliberately crippled, they DESERVE to have folks unlock their hardware once they take physical possession of it. And they deserve to have folks who know how to code release their "unlocked" source code back to the LINUX code pool, thereby fulfilling the terms of that license as the CopyLeft of that base code explicitly states.
But then I am left with one troubling scenario - If I was to hack a scope I own, and then later sell it on... ohhh that gets tricky! Full disclosure would be the way I roll, I guess.
My moral compass points this way:
To hack a scope I own - I'm fine with that, might be annoyed if I (rightfully) get denied after sale support, but that is the price I pay for being cheep.
To hack a scope for somebody else - Nope, not worth the hassle. They can do it themselves
To hack a scope just so you can sell it on for a premium - Not happy with that at all. That is just wrong
It is a bit like using chips from a slower speed grade or overclocking... yeah, it might work for me but I'm not going to inflict it on others.
But then I am left with one troubling scenario - If I was to hack a scope I own, and then later sell it on... ohhh that gets tricky! Full disclosure would be the way I roll, I guess.
sometimes it may make sense to supply more software ........
Supplying software with a unit but dissabling it works both ways. I bet if you had to buy a memory stick with the additional software on it and have it shipped you would be whinging about why they don't just put it in the unit and lock it off so that you buy it when you want it and get "instant" access.
If you don't have the right to do with it what you want you haven't bought it but rented/leased/licensed it.
sometimes it may make sense to supply more software ........
Supplying software with a unit but dissabling it works both ways. I bet if you had to buy a memory stick with the additional software on it and have it shipped you would be whinging about why they don't just put it in the unit and lock it off so that you buy it when you want it and get "instant" access.In much the same way a Cummins 425 hp engine doesn't know it's a 550 hp until it told to be such.
It's the world we live in these days and you'd be surprised what can't be hacked if time and inclination is applied.
The trick is preserve one's code.....or in the case of some marketing strategies make it easy to break.
A machinst that I know got hacked SolidWorks and MasterCAM so that he could save money. Total value is over $20k. That isn't stealing because the software developers still have the source code?
Wow, that is an interesting argument. You can steal intangible property, and that is what this guy did. He is legally forbidden from using these two pieces if software without a license. If I reported it, do you think a lawyer will struggle to put him in jail?
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that?
QuoteBottom line is if they're too damned lazy to even make different versions of the code, but instead deliver the hardware with ALL the software fully functional on it but deliberately crippled, they DESERVE to have folks unlock their hardware once they take physical possession of it. And they deserve to have folks who know how to code release their "unlocked" source code back to the LINUX code pool, thereby fulfilling the terms of that license as the CopyLeft of that base code explicitly states.There are a lot of legal and moral reasons that have been posted, already. I believe I have read every post, so apologies if this has already been addressed:
There's another reason, and that is security.
If you write a completely different firmware, you have to have the customer send his scope in for an upgrade. This will cost way more, due to handling time and shipping. And it will cause significant downtime.
Or, you have to send every customer who orders an upgrade a copy of this firmware upgrade. How do you do this, securely?
Sure, you can use an encrypted bootloader. But a bootloader can be cracked. Now instead of the keys to an upgrade, the hacker has your entire firmware. (And even if it is not cracked, now this dishonest person can use the same firmware to upgrade other scope for free.... or a unique ID must be placed on each device and recorded in a database and accessed by a service rep for a unique firmware to be sent to each customer - adding cost. And there will STILL remain the possibility that someone will hack and possess your entire firmware.)
It is much more desirable (for a product like this) to protect your firmware from such a threat. Even if it means a lesser security to hacking the upgrade.
As others have said, the code locked upgrade is like a car key. It's enough to keep honest people honest. At least you're not giving them the chance to steal the whole kit and caboodle. (Yeah, I know some IC's can be physically hacked either electrically or by decapping and selectively flipping bits with focused UV light. But some chips are made so this is basically impossible without destroying the chip. Even if possible it would be pretty expensive to do this and could take a lot of examples that will be destroyed just for the chance.)
by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so
the developer has not physically lost anything. They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it.
It's quite likely the machinist wouldn't pay for the software anyway.
it IS laziness, it IS being cheap to try and sell the SAME EXACT PRODUCT to a dozen different market segments.
it IS laziness, it IS being cheap to try and sell the SAME EXACT PRODUCT to a dozen different market segments.
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that?
by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do sopeople tend to treat "software" less seriously to a point they think its ok to violate or ignore an agreement.the developer has not physically lost anything. They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it.if we only want to talk about "physical" then.. all "software" should be free. the developer has certainly lost the potential of one paying customer.It's quite likely the machinist wouldn't pay for the software anyway.two situations:
1) he doesnt pay, he doesnt get to use it (this is the normal "physical" purchase like)
2) he doesnt pay, but he got the chance to use it through some unclever hack attempt. (most happening in softwares)
if he wants to be in position of not paying it, he should not use/violate it. thats plain simple. using it without paying it, is just plain wrong. no one with a right mind will say otherwise. he violate it? he should keep it to himself, he should not say to public it is ok to do so.
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
in software, if you want to compete, you make it as cheap as possible and as more features as possible. letting it lose, people hack it easily and use for free resulting in closing down of major competitors, not only the one whose software got hacked.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that?No he hasn't, he would never have seen those $20k. If the machinist has decided that was too much he was never going to pay them and would have gone to a competitor or found a different solution. That doesn't make it right of course, but the loss isn't a tangible one.
Actually now that the guy is getting used to the software by using a cracked copy he's more likely to end up paying for it at some point rather than moving to a completely different solution and relearning everything. That's definitely a thing, I've seen it done and done it myself on more than one occasion. As a student or for hobby uses I've used cracked versions of several popular and expensive software packages for some time, but then once I could afford to pay for them and/or had more serious use cases for them than just playing around I've licensed them correctly. See it as an extension for the free trial that's always too short, and the more it's extended the more the person is likely to shell out one day.
What I can't condone and I've seen some guys do is purchase cracked software from "hacker groups", in quote marks because those aren't real hackers.
Quotebut there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.In the case of the Rigol hack, where the reason is to unlock hardware which one has already paid for, then it's perfectly morally right as far as I'm concerned. It's my hardware, which I paid good money for and I have the right to use it. Asking for more money to allow me to use something I already own is like demanding a ransom.
Quotebut there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.In the case of the Rigol hack, where the reason is to unlock hardware which one has already paid for, then it's perfectly morally right as far as I'm concerned. It's my hardware, which I paid good money for and I have the right to use it. Asking for more money to allow me to use something I already own is like demanding a ransom.
Simple solution: use the hardware but not the software.
I don't see any problem if you use the hardware you have paid for.
I do see a problem if you use software you haven't paid for.
I do see problems if a manufacturer prevents you using software you have paid for - as Microsoft did with WinXP on one of my machines when the disk died.
I do see problems if a manufacturer prevents you from playing music you have paid for - as Microsoft did with PlaysForSure(TM) [sic].
But neither of those are the case here.
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase. Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong. Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever. The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS. Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions. There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
I agree with that but it's hardware locking which is immoral and could even be illegal in some jurisdictions.