manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (01/30/91)
[Stepping on Soap box]
Can anyone tell me why there are so many people so willing to violate
their non-disclosure agreements with Commodore?
In the last couple of weeks I have seen many postings from individuals
asking questions about software that is only available to developers.
And what is worse is that the developers are answering these questions.
I am a registered developer and I respect the non-disclosure agreement
that I signed. It is very annoying to see the flagrant (in some
cases) violation of these agreements.
I really want the developers to respect their agreements. I fear that
if these kind of violations continue the current developers program
will be put aside and a more "Microsoft" like agreement will be put
in its place.
Folks, think before you post.
[Stepping off Soap Box... hoping that I did make a difference]
Send all flames /dev/null
-mark=
+--------+ ==================================================
| \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision"
| /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu
| / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA"
+--------+ ==================================================
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (01/30/91)
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. However, what specifically shouldn't we be talking about that we are? Everything that is currently in 2.0 or Unix is free game. The only thing that surprised me that was mentioned was SANA, but that's about it. -- Ethan How did the Computer Scientist die in the shower? He followed the instructions: 0) Lather 1) Rinse 2) Repeat He died of a heap-stack collision.
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (01/30/91)
In article <561.27a5a3ca@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > >Can anyone tell me why there are so many people so willing to violate >their non-disclosure agreements with Commodore? > >In the last couple of weeks I have seen many postings from individuals >asking questions about software that is only available to developers. >And what is worse is that the developers are answering these questions. Thank you for the clear words. >I really want the developers to respect their agreements. I fear that >if these kind of violations continue the current developers program >will be put aside and a more "Microsoft" like agreement will be put >in its place. Hmm, what do you mean by this? The current situation is that MS-DOS 5.0 is in it's beta state, everybody raves about it, gives different "informations" about, there are notices published that it is already released to the public and then afterwards it turns out that some seller has betrayed that buyer with old software, and so on. Well, does this all sound familiar for people here? So what do you mean with a "Microsoft like agreement"? (I don't know their non-disclosure contracts.) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) (01/30/91)
In a message posted on 29 Jan 91 22:48:23 GMT,
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) wrote:
ES>In article <561.27a5a3ca@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes:
ES>>[Stepping on Soap box]
ES>>
ES>>Can anyone tell me why there are so many people so willing to violate
ES>>their non-disclosure agreements with Commodore?
ES> However, what specifically shouldn't we be talking about
ES>that we are? Everything that is currently in 2.0 or Unix is free
Kickit: A program only usefull if you are a developer (and are thus supported) or
if you have *PIRATED* the ROM image from a Developer that should (IMHO) be SHOT!
KS/WB 2.0 version greater than the 2.02 package (Nothing else has been made
available to users - I have heard roomers of Dealerships installing Developer
Test versions on People's machines).
---
Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. I represent nobody else.
Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {tigris,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm
FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282
Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109 Gateway for .Amiga.OCUnix.On.Camwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (01/31/91)
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). <mike -- 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.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (01/31/91)
In article <58779.665251609@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) writes: >In a message posted on 29 Jan 91 22:48:23 GMT, >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) wrote: >ES> However, what specifically shouldn't we be talking about >ES>that we are? Everything that is currently in 2.0 or Unix is free > >Kickit: A program only usefull if you are a developer (and are >thus supported) or if you have *PIRATED* the ROM image from a >Developer that should (IMHO) be SHOT! >KS/WB 2.0 version greater than the 2.02 package (Nothing else has >been made available to users - I have heard roomers of >Dealerships installing Developer Test versions on People's >machines). It isn't like I'm giving away the kickit/kick... or 2.04 programs themselves. Does mentioning that kickit exists, or describing a bug in 2.04 in ANY way infringe on CBM's competitiveness? Perhaps in the wording of the contract they are unacceptable to mention the existence of, but at least from my perspective they have been mentioned by so many other people that it is a moot point, and the agreement is invalid at that point anyway. Actually, I'm not even supposed to say when I'm allowed to say things. 8-) >--- > Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. I represent nobody else. > Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {tigris,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm > FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282 > Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109 Gateway for .Amiga.OCUnix.On.Ca -- Ethan "It seemed like he appeared on every television show except Wheel of Fortune. You see, he was afraid that Vanna might turn over the 'L' word." -- George Bush attacking Michael Dukakis for going on TV
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (01/31/91)
In article <803@cbmger.UUCP>, peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: > In article <561.27a5a3ca@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >> >>Can anyone tell me why there are so many people so willing to violate >>their non-disclosure agreements with Commodore? >> >>In the last couple of weeks I have seen many postings from individuals >>asking questions about software that is only available to developers. >>And what is worse is that the developers are answering these questions. > > Thank you for the clear words. > >>I really want the developers to respect their agreements. I fear that >>if these kind of violations continue the current developers program >>will be put aside and a more "Microsoft" like agreement will be put >>in its place. > > Hmm, what do you mean by this? The current situation is that MS-DOS 5.0 > is in it's beta state, everybody raves about it, gives different > "informations" about, there are notices published that it is already > released to the public and then afterwards it turns out that some > seller has betrayed that buyer with old software, and so on. Well, > does this all sound familiar for people here? > So what do you mean with a "Microsoft like agreement"? (I don't know > their non-disclosure contracts.) Well last time I checked with a friend who is heavy into PC land, to be a "Microsoft" developer you have to pay $2000, and this gets you little. Perhaps this has changed, but the point is the same. Right now it is possible for those individuals who want to be involved in developing software to have access to information that is not easily obtainable from other companies. It is my feeling that this might well dry up if people abuse it. I really appreciate the availability of CATS and the method in which the developer program works. I hate to see something happen to it. Thats all... > > -- > Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... > Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (01/31/91)
In article <MWM.91Jan30110432@raven.pa.dec.com>, 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. > > <mike > -- > 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" +--------+ ==================================================
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (01/31/91)
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes) 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? > >In the last couple of weeks I have seen many postings from individuals >asking questions about software that is only available to developers. >And what is worse is that the developers are answering these questions. > >I am a registered developer and I respect the non-disclosure agreement >that I signed. It is very annoying to see the flagrant (in some >cases) violation of these agreements. > >I really want the developers to respect their agreements. I fear that >if these kind of violations continue the current developers program >will be put aside and a more "Microsoft" like agreement will be put >in its place. > >Folks, think before you post. > > >[Stepping off Soap Box... hoping that I did make a difference] Hmm.. are you insinuating that only developers have access to 2.0? are you forgetting that MANY 3000 owners also have access to this software? It was my impression that (since you didn't mention specific software) that this is what you mean. many 3000 owners have no idea why the software doesn't work as the manual says. worse yet are all the developers that don't have specific SOFTWARE backrounds and are asking questions. I know of a commercial developer that only had a hardware product that he financed and put on the market. and knows very little about his 2.0 that he recieves. > >Send all flames /dev/null > > -mark= > > +--------+ ================================================== > | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" > | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu > | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" > +--------+ ================================================== > UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (01/31/91)
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") ;-)
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (01/31/91)
In article <1991Jan30.205801.8210@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > Article-I.D.: cunixf.1991Jan30.205801.8210 > References: <58779.665251609@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> > Sender: news@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Daily News) > Organization: Columbia University > Lines: 41 > > In article <58779.665251609@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) writes: >>In a message posted on 29 Jan 91 22:48:23 GMT, >>es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) wrote: >>ES> However, what specifically shouldn't we be talking about >>ES>that we are? Everything that is currently in 2.0 or Unix is free >> > >>Kickit: A program only usefull if you are a developer (and are >>thus supported) or if you have *PIRATED* the ROM image from a >>Developer that should (IMHO) be SHOT! > >>KS/WB 2.0 version greater than the 2.02 package (Nothing else has >>been made available to users - I have heard roomers of >>Dealerships installing Developer Test versions on People's >>machines). > > It isn't like I'm giving away the kickit/kick... or 2.04 > programs themselves. Does mentioning that kickit exists, or > describing a bug in 2.04 in ANY way infringe on CBM's > competitiveness? Perhaps in the wording of the contract they are That is not yours to determine. That is Commodores decision. Non-disclosure means at least to me, "not to talk about it". Commodore has provided a provision that when it is general knowledge or announced by Commodore discussions can be had. I think that the meaning of non-disclosure is clear. In my opinion it does not mean "leak" information and then claim it is "public knowledge". Further by talking about it in public (even if you are not giving it away) makes those users who don't have it, seek it out. That causes a support nightmare I would imagine for Commodore. It sure would make me want to stop releasing "beta test" copies to the "registered" community. I am not accusing you of anything Ethan, just stating that if the developers program is mis-used it is likely to dissappear. I would hate to see that happen just because there are certain individuals that want to "honk" and say "look-ee at what I got" Further, discussions of bugs in un-released material should only be done by official means, and that too is documented. > unacceptable to mention the existence of, but at least from my > perspective they have been mentioned by so many other people that > it is a moot point, and the agreement is invalid at that point > anyway. > Actually, I'm not even supposed to say when I'm allowed > to say things. 8-) > Then don't! :-) >>--- >> Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. I represent nobody else. >> Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {tigris,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm >> FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282 >> Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109 Gateway for .Amiga.OCUnix.On.Ca > > > -- Ethan > -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (01/31/91)
In article <3946@orbit.cts.com>, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes) writes: >>[Stepping on Soap box] > >> [Really brilliant stuff deleted that was written by ME! :-) :-) ] > > Hmm.. are you insinuating that only developers have access to 2.0? are you > forgetting that MANY 3000 owners also have access to this software? It was my > impression that (since you didn't mention specific software) that this is what > you mean. many 3000 owners have no idea why the software doesn't work as the > manual says. worse yet are all the developers that don't have specific > SOFTWARE backrounds and are asking questions. I know of a commercial > developer that only had a hardware product that he financed and put on the > market. and knows very little about his 2.0 that he recieves. Sigh.. Of course I am not forgetting about the A3000 running 2.0. I am talking about software that has been released under the developers program, not software that you can purchase, or is distributed with a computer. I would advise your "commercial developer" to become a part of the developers program. I certainly would not be brave enough to bring a product to market (especially a hardware one!) without the knowledge that the developers program provides. >> >>Send all flames /dev/null >> >> -mark= > > UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks > ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil > INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (02/01/91)
In article <571.27a73936@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >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. Well, Kickit is the Commodore program, zkick has nothing to do with Commodore as I understand it. If I say "I'm having problems getting kickit to boot the kickstart," how does that hurt Commodore? > >You also have seen postings from Commodore saying something to the effect >of "you should not have this anyway...". > This is a totally separate issue. One issue is people talking about developers-only programs and the other is people who aren't developers having developers-only programs. The latter is wrong and the developer should be caught. The former is not necessarily a violation of anything. Just because the program isn't generally available doesn't mean the program is a secret. Kickit isn't exactly the most complicated, classified product. >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. > Which? Specifically. >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. > > > -mark= > > +--------+ ================================================== > | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" > | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu > | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" > +--------+ ================================================== > -- Ethan "It seemed like he appeared on every television show except Wheel of Fortune. You see, he was afraid that Vanna might turn over the 'L' word." -- George Bush attacking Michael Dukakis for going on TV
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (02/01/91)
In article <572.27a7dea0@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >Further by talking about it in public (even if you are not >giving it away) makes those users who don't have it, seek >it out. That causes a support nightmare I would imagine >for Commodore. It sure would make me want to stop releasing >"beta test" copies to the "registered" community. I'm afraid that there is very little Commodore can do to prevent these leaks. Long before I got my A3000, we're talking WB 1.4 beta 3, there were pirate BBS's with the kickit/kick.22s.20 or some such. How Commodore is supposed to stop this, I don't know. I know that technically the 2.04 and kickit are not to be discussed, but I'm sure there are much better examples. -- Ethan "It seemed like he appeared on every television show except Wheel of Fortune. You see, he was afraid that Vanna might turn over the 'L' word." -- George Bush attacking Michael Dukakis for going on TV
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.192107.14549@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > I'm afraid that there is very little Commodore can do to >prevent these leaks. Long before I got my A3000, we're talking WB >1.4 beta 3, there were pirate BBS's with the kickit/kick.22s.20 >or some such. How Commodore is supposed to stop this, I don't >know. Well, if we know about it we can consider doing something about it. If you see a developer-only KS on a BBS, you might consider send mail to CATS (not me, please, I get plenty already). > I know that technically the 2.04 and kickit are not to be >discussed, but I'm sure there are much better examples. Well, you (and others) keep referring to it as 2.04. It might well be called that, but then again it might not. Calling it 2.04 in public places (like here) can cause users who don't understand we're referring to an unfinished beta to say "2.04? Why don't I have that, Commodore must have released it." They then go out an run it, not knowing that it is unfinished and not necessarily safe for them to be running (or worse yet, the hit temporary bugs we wouldn't release with, and tell all their friends not to buy Amigas because new releases are so buggy). They can even get (actually easily) misimpressions from seeing bug/compatibility reports for Beta's posted all over the nets, if they don't understand the context. There are formal channels for reporting bugs. There are private discussion areas where Commodore and registered developers can have frank discussions (since everyone is disclosed and registered). This takes place on BIX (for US developers, European developers have a separate system). I've explained it as well as I can, so I think I'll shut up now. -- 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") ;-)