Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!purdue!haven!uvaarpa!vger.nsu.edu!manes From: manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Non-Disclosure - How about respecting it? Message-ID: <571.27a73936@vger.nsu.edu> Date: 31 Jan 91 01:23:02 GMT References: <561.27a5a3ca@vger.nsu.edu> <1991Jan29.224823.12794@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Lines: 64 In article , mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > 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. In my opinion, it does not hurt to be slightly paranoid. > > 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). Certainly I can read the non-disclosure agreement and I certainly understand the wording, but thanks for translating it anyway. There _have_ been things posted about programs that have not been released to the public (at least to my knowledge). I have seen several questions about how to get zkick et al to work on a 500 etc. etc. You also have seen postings from Commodore saying something to the effect of "you should not have this anyway...". I grant that there are perfectly legitimate discussions that do not violate the non-disclosure agreements. I think you can grant that there have been more than one violation of the agreement. It concerns me, tis all. I am not trying to become non-disclosure "net cop", just wanted to point out what I think _could_ be a problem if not kept in check. > > -- > Round about, round about, in a fair ring-a. Mike Meyer > Thus we dance, thus we dance, and thus we sing-a. mwm@pa.dec.com > Trip and go, to and fro, over this green-a. decwrl!mwm > All about, in and out, over this green-a. -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================