Statalist


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

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


From   Marcello Pagano <pagano@hsph.harvard.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)
Date   Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:33:17 -0500

OK this is now getting personal. Nothing new of value has been added to the discussion in the last few rounds. You may consider this as contributing against freedom of speech, then so be it. When one party hides behind a fake name to defend piracy, then I think we have been more than fair in listening this long.

Let us call an end to this discussion on this list, please, unless StataCorp want to defend themselves.

m.p.



Demo Crazy wrote:
Dear Nick,

thanks for your contributions against freedom of speech: my wonder, remember the "?", based on facts. It is also nice to see that big companies have always good defenders whatever they can do.


--- El vie, 6/11/09, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> escribió:

De: Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
Asunto: RE: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version 11?)
Para: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Fecha: viernes, 6 de noviembre, 2009 12:46
I have absolutely no legal expertise.
If I had then I would not be expressing legal views on your
assertions in an email forum. That would be inappropriate,
indeed unprofessional.

I would seriously advise to consider whether comments like
yours are not libellous, leaving you open to legal action in
one or more countries.
Beyond that I consider that only StataCorp can comment
authoritatively on the actions of StataCorp, but that's at
their discretion.
If you have an issue with StataCorp, take it up with them
directly. Expect them to want to hear information and
reasoned argument, not insinuation and abuse.
Otherwise I will not contribute further comments in this
thread. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk


Demo Crazy

You understand it perfectly, but you say only part of the
truth (is not this called falacy?)

(1) honest users do not know what other malware is hiding
Stata Corp.

(2) Why do you only focus on the user and not on Stata
Corp.? they are not only dishonest but criminals. Please
review regulations and tell me if Stata Corp can legally
behaves like that.... How difficult it is to add a notice
about what a dishonest user can expect!


--- El vie, 6/11/09, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
escribió:

De: Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
Asunto: RE: st: AW: Stata 10 is Malware (also version
11?)
Para: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Fecha: viernes, 6 de noviembre, 2009 12:21
I understand you to be saying that if
you knowingly use an invalid
license number then Stata doesn't behave.
In essence, I regard that as very good news for the
honest.
Many thanks
for sharing it with us! Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk


Demo Crazy

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.
*
*   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