Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Non-Disclosure - How about respecting it? Message-ID: Date: 30 Jan 91 19:04:32 GMT References: <561.27a5a3ca@vger.nsu.edu> <1991Jan29.224823.12794@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu's message of 29 Jan 91 22:48:23 GMT In article <1991Jan29.224823.12794@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: In article <561.27a5a3ca@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >[Stepping on Soap box] > >Can anyone tell me why there are so many people so willing to violate >their non-disclosure agreements with Commodore? > Mainly cause the Commodore employees themselves are talking about these things. I generally use that as my general rule: If someone from cbmvax says it, then Commodore has made it publically available and the developer agreement is moot. Actually, that's slightly paranoid. If you look at the non-disclosure agreement, once someone (not necessarily CBM) has talked about something publicly, then you can repeat that information. For example, discussion of the libraries and include files in 2.02 is fair game, because SAS C 5.10a had include files (including prototypes and pragmas, plus some documentation in the form of comments) for what's in 2.02, and that is available to the public (for a fee, of course).