Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)


From   Demo Crazy <democrazy55@yahoo.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)
Date   Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:03:24 +0000 (GMT)

It is *legal* to have a *legal* copy AND a *legal* serial, isn't it? Because that is what I have ... 
(I thought it is perfectly clear for any average IQ person from my message that it was what I meant when I said I bought a copy of Stata, since any *legal* copy of Stata from Stata Corp. includes a *legal* serial, isn't it?


My point is that Stata includes undocumented malware. Stata guys say that bad behaviour comes from other guys modifying their the program. But this is NOT true because my *original* copy from them behaves in that undocumented way when an invalid license is provided, without 

I guess that killing a killer is, in principle, not legal. Maybe your laws allow it but with some clear procedures.... In this case, cracking a cracker is ILEGAL (=malware) unless you clearly make this well-known.





--- El vie, 6/11/09, Martin Weiss <martin.weiss1@gmx.de> escribió:

> De: Martin Weiss <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>
> Asunto: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)
> Para: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Fecha: viernes, 6 de noviembre, 2009 11:03
> 
> <> 
> 
> 
> What is "*legal*" about a copy that has been installed
> using a fake serial??? 
> 
> 
> 
> HTH
> Martin
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]
> Im Auftrag von Demo Crazy
> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. November 2009 11:46
> An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Betreff: st: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)
> 
> After seeing this post 
> 
> http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2008-08/msg01142.html
> 
> I tried to install my *legal* copy of Stata 10 with one of
> those serials available on the web. I found the same
> behaviour: random dropping of variables.
> 
> Therefore the original Stata itself (not version modified
> by others as gus from Stata suggest) includes undocumented
> functions: this is definition of MALWARE. Is it including
> also other undocumentd parts of code that allows it to steal
> my personal data?
> 
> I thinks that this behaviour from Stata can be sued. Just a
> notice telling that this dropping has beed made because the
> license is not valid would make it legal. But otherwise
> Stata guys are crackers, includign malware in their
> product.
> 
> Thank you a lot STata: you have finaly convinced me that I
> won't ever buy a new copy of Stata and just move to other
> statiscal package (preferibly open source like GNU R, but
> maybe SAS or another)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
> 
> 
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>



      

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index