Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!usfvax2!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,alt.flame,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Smalltalk/V Decompiler
Message-ID: <85@ateng.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Oct-87 09:35:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ateng.85
Posted: Tue Oct 27 09:35:56 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Oct-87 06:06:58 EST
References: <2490@mmintl.UUCP> <57@ateng.UUCP> <1892@killer.UUCP>
Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Organization: A.T. Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 32
Xref: hoptoad comp.lang.smalltalk:371 alt.flame:374 misc.legal:3062

Okay, folks, I was wrong...

>> In article <2490@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>>>I recently posted an article offering to send my Smalltalk/V [TM]
>>>decompiler to anyone who wanted it.  I have since been contacted by
>>>Digitalk, who threatened to take me to court if I proceeded.

In article <57@ateng.UUCP>, I wrote:
>> [General anti-lawsuit flamage]
>> There is no question of violation of contract here.

In article <1892@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes:
>[...] Loading a program into memory to be
>disassembled is not permitted in that case.  Even still, many of the
>licenses I have seen expressly forbid reverse engineering a piece of
>software by whatever means.

True enough; there _is_ a question of violation of contract.  I retract my
flame.

I also wrote:
>> I think that today's big winner is Softsmarts ...

I still believe this (although I would also include ParcPlace Systems).
I don't think that I'm the only programmer who prefers to use Smalltalk
systems with _complete_ source code.

-- 
Chip Salzenberg         "chip@ateng.UUCP"  or  "{uunet,usfvax2}!ateng!chip"
A.T. Engineering        My employer's opinions are not mine, but these are.
   "Gentlemen, your work today has been outstanding.  I intend to recommend
   you all for promotion -- in whatever fleet we end up serving."   - JTK