rdearman wrote:The difference in this case is the LWT software is basically a re-write. So to use your movie analogy, he didn't make a digital copy. He hired all the same actors, script writers, production crew, stuntmen, cameras, and sound people. He remade the movie from scratch, had it edited, did post edit production, had it manufactured on to DVD and released it. That is the difference. If he'd hacked into LingQ and downloaded the source code an put it up as a torrent, then he is stealing and it would be the same as making a copy of a movie.
Reverse engineered software isn't the same as the original, anymore than if you reproduced the Mona Lisa in watercolour. Your watercolour would be an original it just looks like the Mona Lisa. LWT was created using the authors own creative powers and it is a different piece of intellectual property. If the first guy who though of an idea was the owner of the idea, then you'd never see more than one western, there would only be one mystery book, there would only be one type of tire for a car, etc.
I sort of take your point. But ethically reverse-engineering can a gray area.
For example, if I thought HP was the greatest book ever written so I wrote "Mary Otter and the Philosopher's Stick" and it took me a year and I wrote every word and I self-published it with my own money using all my own unique characters (who very often resemble characters in that other book I love so much), Rowling would sue me for every nickel I had. There have been such cases.
So ... the world being the way it is ... I suppose it's no problem if people want to use LWT. Personally, I still wouldn't but obviously it's legal so what do I know (or care).
But Serpent was implying that LingQ was somehow unfair to suppress discussion of LWT
on the LingQ forum. This to me, is unfair. To continue the JK Rowling example, she is personally okay with fan fiction that is posted for free online where no one will read it, but will sue the pants off anybody who tries to make a buck off it. In the case of LingQ, LWT can draw away paying customers, so they have to be aggressive not let it being promoted on their own site. This seems reasonable to me.
I don't know if you need an account to see this thread, but the announcement is here: 
I'm mostly frustrated by their vague unfounded statements - feel free to say LingQ is better, but how about actually trying LWT and saying which advantages it lacks? (I mean the LingQ staff here, not regular members like you who are satisfied with what they use and see no need to try LWT)