🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3593.25f78a85@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> ke2y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <1990Mar9.024332.495@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
 
-> So what's MacNosy? Chopped liver?  Of course you have enough source.  Unless
-> Apple doesn't want to (or can't because of contract reasons) look at it.
                          ************************************ [MTK]
-> Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)

>  Excuse me, but if I understand you correctly, you are implying that MacinTalk
>should be disassembled/reverse-compiled by someone (Apple?) so that a bug-fix
>can be made to allow it to work with System 7.

>  Generally, most licensing agreements specifically prohibit disassembly and
>reverse-compilation of the code (and generally do not allow ANY modifications
>to the code at all).  As an end-user of this product, typically you are also
>bound to this agreement that Apple apparently signed.

>  Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of these assumptions.

Sure.  Please read my original posting.  What you say is possibly true.  I am
not so sure *I* am bound by Apple's original agreement with whoever wrote
MacinTalk.  In any event, as you can see, I was only responding to Chuq's
assertion that he didn't have source code that would enable him to modify
MacinTalk.  Besides, Apple has already admitted to making binary patches to
the code.  I guess it is possible to do that without disassembling it -- but
I think it would be rather more difficult to do.

Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)