Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Non-Disclosure - How about respecting it?
Message-ID: <18355@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 31 Jan 91 08:53:44 GMT
References: <58779.665251609@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> <1991Jan30.205801.8210@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 32

In article <1991Jan30.205801.8210@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>	It isn't like I'm giving away the kickit/kick... or 2.04
>programs themselves.

	Some (obviously) have been.  This is VERY bad, for reasons I gave in
earlier messages.

> Does mentioning that kickit exists, or
>describing a bug in 2.04 in ANY way infringe on CBM's
>competitiveness?

	I have no idea about legal matters, but I do know that we often provide
our developers with privileged information.  There are all sorts of ways
leaks of information about Betas can affect the company (usually adversely).
There was a very good article about this in ?EE Times? recently where a
columnist was explaining why this is bad (and giving examples of all sorts
of reporters who ask beta-testers to break their beta agreements).

	I assume (I'm no lawyer, I'm just being paranoid) that the agreements
don't cover anything we've formally released (such as 2.02).

	BTW, Commodore has not released anything marked 2.04 that I know of.
There are betas out there, usually labelled 36.xxx or 37.xxx, so we can know
exactly which version a bug report is for.

	Speaking for myself, not Commodore...
-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
The compiler runs
Like a swift-flowing river
I wait in silence.  (From "The Zen of Programming")  ;-)