Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!mit-eddie!gary From: gary@eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: DISK RECALL Message-ID: <6376@eddie.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 11:20:29 EDT Article-I.D.: eddie.6376 Posted: Fri Jul 24 11:20:29 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 13:58:36 EDT References: <3590@well.UUCP> <3596@well.UUCP> <342@mcdsun.UUCP> Reply-To: gary@eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad) Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Lines: 27 In article <342@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: }In article <3596@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: } }> Now this *is* odd. I checked this one out, too. The README file }>says that it's freely redistributable. Did the contractor change his mind? }>Or is it just a mistrake? } }I have now heard from both sides on this one. They apparently do not }agree (and may not even know for sure) whether or not any proprietary }code or algorithms (trade secrets) were used in the suspect binary. }I have done the safe thing and pulled the disk from circulation. } }-Fred There is no question that proprietary algorithms were used in this program although perhaps not proprietary code. I hired this contractor to translate my routines from C to assembler and it is precisely these algorithms that he released in the "snap" program. He has signed two documents that very clearly state that these algorithms are trade secrets and that the routines themselves are copyrighted and completely owned by Software Visions, Inc. Even if he completely rewrote the code (which he claims) that does not release him from the NON-DISCLOSURE agreement that he signed to protect my trade secrets. May there be no misunderstanding, Gary