Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Legal Tail Patches
Message-ID: <6582@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 20 Feb 89 08:37:15 GMT
References: <1285@ccnysci.UUCP> <6562@hoptoad.uucp> <1288@ccnysci.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 22

In article <1288@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
>
>Tim Maroney remarks that my tail patch method is not terribly useful
>because you usually want the patch to always be in place. He uses the
>example of suitcase (actually, that was the first thing I tought of too).
>
>To be honest, this reaction doesn't surprise me much, because I think he's
>right in most cases. There is one exception, though, which is the case for
>which I developed this technique: parasitic (or symbiotic?) code modules,
>like XCMDs. In this case, you can't replace a trap for the application by
>just calling a different routine because you didn't write the app in the
>first place.

Correct; I hadn't considered extensible applications or "gene-spliced"
ones (I'm tempted to use the term "benign virus", but presumably the
patches you're talking about don't reproduce).  Your technique would be
useful and legal (enough) in those cases.  Sorry for the oversight, and
thanks for the idea.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim
"Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
 Religion is the smile on a dog" -- Edie Brickell, "What I Am"