Ahhhhh...I see said the blind man.

 Please accept my apology for anything I may have said that
 that may have offended you.  My intent was not to cause you
 grief, but only to remind you that software piracy is not a
 good thing.  But in this case, that was not the issue.

 Regarding the sales pitch to your customer, I wish you the best
 of luck, and hope that you can make the customer see the way
 to go is the way you're asking them to go.

 And by all means, have a GREAT THANKSGIVING.

                                 Regards,

                                   Jim




On Wed, 24 November 1999, John Pfaff wrote:

>
> It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that he wants to use the
> 16F84, but the customer is concerned about the cracking, and he's trying to
> justify its use to the customer.  It's got nothing to do with actually
> wanting to crack a 16F84.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James Paul <jim@JPES.COM>
> To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 1:51 pm
> Subject: Re: REPHRASED--In which PICs is the copy protection most
>
>
> I don't quite understand why you would want to 'CRACK' the
>  memory protection if you are the rightful owner of the code.
>  In the first place, you should already have a copy of the
>  code available. Second, if you don't have a copy, then you'll
>  remember the next time.
>  On the other hand, if you're not the rightful owner of the
>  code, then you shouldn't be trying to 'CRACK' it in the first
>  place.  And shame on you if you do.
>  I don't think firmware , or any software for that matter,
>  should be appropriated for personal use or any other use
>  without the owners permission.  I'm not implying that any
>  wrongdoing is going on here, but just be careful.
>
>                                         Regards,
>
>                                           Jim
>
>
> On Wed, 24 November 1999, Craig Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > So what you are saying is that the OTP devices are the most in-vulnerable?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> > > [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Wagner Lipnharski
> > > Sent: November 24, 1999 11:03 AM
> > > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: REPHRASED--In which PICs is the copy protection most
> > > easilybreached?
> > >
> > >
> > > If you consider the fact that any "field programmable unit" (eprom,
> > > eeprom and flash) has a kind of "volatile" protection bits, while the
> > > ROM type has fuses (that are not reversible), then all e2prom, eprom and
> > > flash devices can be considered "more vulnerable" to piracy.
> > > Wagner
>
> jim@jpes.com

jim@jpes.com