Eric Smith wrote:
>
> Mark Willis <mwillis@NWLINK.COM> wrote:
> > Another point is that MIT isn't likely to continue to host this list if
> > we go into too gray an area of technology, much less illegal areas
> > involving theft of intellectual property, etc.
> <snipped>
> I think it's unfair to assume that Edward was going to steal the code;
> he didn't say what he was planning to do with the code.

  I didn't make such an assumption;  I said:
> This really isn't a list for discussing cracking code protection,
> Edward.  ...
  My concern:  This list is going to have chaos problems again, if we
don't avoid these sort of way off topic subjects.

> > I declare this thread DEAD DEAD DEAD, in other words.
>
> A bit presumptuous, aren't we?

In my opinion I was doing my JOB, as PICList Assistant administrator, to
prevent the sort of chaos we've seen all TOO much before, actually.  I
don't want to see PICList traffic double with people speaking ill of
each other, because - for good reasons - some PICList members see the
risk of their livelihood potentially being destroyed, after they've
developed a market, by someone else less honest stealing their ideas &
undercutting them.  Yes, we're all curious about the subject too, maybe
knowing how PICs are cracked will help some people protect their code
better.

> Eric

All:

Jory answered, when I asked him, that he doesn't have problems with the
subject, so I'll take my lumps & whimper crawling into the corner - I'll
just ask that people keep it polite & supportive & technical, not
personal.  Expect some people to be very much LESS than friendly
(Personally I think of code protection as breakable, and have had to
design a few modules that break themselves if cracked into by
unauthorized people.  Not my choice, you do what your employer wants.  I
just have an overdeveloped sense of humor <G>)

  Mark