Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
So what happens if a principal makes a decision that causes loss of
income for a litigating class?
i.e.: What if the principal was one of those who made the decision to
institute a tethered copy-protection scheme that, during the
implosion of the business, caused
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
So what happens if a principal makes a decision that causes loss of
income for a litigating class?
i.e.: What if the principal was one of those who made the decision to
institute a tethered copy-protection scheme that, during the
implosion of
At 6:46 AM -0500 3/12/05, dhbailey wrote:
Somewhere in that license are several phrases which include words
such as anybody associated with Coda -- that would include the
board members, I would think. So the license which every end user
agrees to has already absolved not only the company but
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 6:46 AM -0500 3/12/05, dhbailey wrote:
Somewhere in that license are several phrases which include words such
as anybody associated with Coda -- that would include the board
members, I would think. So the license which every end user agrees to
has already absolved
At 06:48 AM 3/13/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
Just as we all knew that there might be trouble if we upgraded to a
tethered version of the software.
There's also restraint of trade, conspiracy, racketeering, and a host of
other related behaviors that cannot be mitigated by the presence of a
At 8:30 AM -0500 3/11/05, dhbailey wrote:
(In reply to my thesis that a corporate principal might be found
liable for actions taken that deprive a litigating class of their
source of income:)
The license you agree to when you use the software (even the
pre-tethered versions) states pretty
Robert Patterson schrieb:
By contrast, I still
have a few MacOS binaries I purchased in the 1980s that still work just
fine in Panther OSX. In particular MS Word 5.1 and MS Works 3.
And to take this point one step further, these programs are likely to
keep functioning as long as Apple keeps
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
At 8:30 AM -0500 3/11/05, dhbailey wrote:
(In reply to my thesis that a corporate principal might be found liable
for actions taken that deprive a litigating class of their source of
income:)
The license you agree to when you use the software (even the
pre-tethered
Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
[snip]
So what happens if a principal makes a decision that causes loss of
income for a litigating class?
i.e.: What if the principal was one of those who made the decision to
institute a tethered copy-protection scheme that, during the implosion
of the business,
I don't think I'm being dishonest. I never qualified eventually. The
whole point about forever is that it is, well, forever. If your software
doesn't quit working in 15 years, then it will quit during the next 15
years, and if not then, then in the next, or the next, or the next, or
the next.
On 11 Mar 2005 at 10:20, Robert Patterson wrote:
I don't think I'm being dishonest. I never qualified eventually. The
whole point about forever is that it is, well, forever. If your
software doesn't quit working in 15 years, then it will quit during
the next 15 years, and if not then, then in
On 11 Mar 2005 at 11:31, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Couperin and Charpentier
Lessons of Tenebre
That would be: Lessons for Tenebrae.
You know, I've always had a block on that -- I spelled it right at
first, but then rememebered the
On 11 Mar 2005 at 20:37, d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
You know, I've always had a block on that -- I spelled it right at
first, but then remembered the French on the Charpentier MS (Leçons
des tenebres) and lost my nerve. Of course, now that I look at the MS
again, I see that my
David W. Fenton wrote:
Yes, you may have to recompile your runtime under the most recent
.NET version,
Recompiling is not an option in this context. What I am saying is that
my old DOS utilities continue to run *without* recompile since the last
time I build them in the mid-1980s. Meantime, I
On 11 Mar 2005 at 14:04, Robert Patterson wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Yes, you may have to recompile your runtime under the most recent
.NET version,
Recompiling is not an option in this context. What I am saying is that
my old DOS utilities continue to run *without* recompile since
On 11 Mar 2005 at 21:04, d. collins wrote:
David W. Fenton écrit:
The Charpentier MS doesn't have the cedilla on the c or any accents
on the e's, either.
The Couperin original print has only one accent, and it's wrong (by
modern standards): tenébres.
I accompanied all three today, by
In a response to Robert Patterson, where David W. Fenton wrote, in part:
We're talking about the interval of a few years after the failure of
MakeMusic, when Finale users would need some capability to use their
files. During that interval, with a key escrow setup, they'd have a
choice to take
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
to which I would suggest a better option would be for the group of
power users to buy shares, and make a point of this at the
shareholder's meeting.
ns
_
A point made at a shareholder's meeting by minority shareholders is
usually ignored. Been there, done that: the
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 9 Mar 2005 at 22:57, Simon Troup wrote:
I'm not certain that releasing unlock codes or whatever is feasible as
it would seriously damage the companies ability to be sold on if a
catastrophe happened, as the prvious version of the software would be
available to use easily
Simon Troup wrote:
[snip]
In such a situation some other form of backing up your right to use the
program would be better. Emagic used to issue keys on floppy disc (way,
way back!) and you could transfer the keys via the floppy. I wonder if
there's some more up to date way of effecting the same
Daniel Wolf wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
to which I would suggest a better option would be for the group of
power users to buy shares, and make a point of this at the
shareholder's meeting.
ns
_
A point made at a shareholder's meeting by minority shareholders is
usually ignored. Been
d. collins wrote:
Well, this is where I completely disagree with you. If all your
worried about is printing your files, why don't you simply back
them up as PDFs?
I already make pdfs of everything. I also print multiple copies of
everything, date them, and put them in archive.
Geeze the way
Goodness. I came back to 41 more messages on the topic.
Dennis Collins said, You aren't victimized by the authentication process
in itself. But indeed you are. It encourages a where are your papers
mentality. You must always be ready to explain yourself to a private
entity. It extends corporate
dhbailey wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the corporate clients, such as
Warner Brothers and Hal Leonard don't have to go through the
authentication process at all. I bet that corporate versions don't
have that process in the code, since the onus for policing licensed
On Mar 10, 2005, at 2:21 AM, d. collins wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg écrit:
I've found it necessary, on account of hard drive failure, to
reinstall 2k4 three times, and the biggest inconvenience I
experienced was having to wait until the Finale office opened later
in the morning, to call and request
I think Chris meant call up in the sense of call up your files
(i.e, open your files), not call up Coda.
Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up?
remains.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:29 AM, d. collins wrote:
Christopher Smith
On Mar 10, 2005, at 9:29 AM, d. collins wrote:
Christopher Smith écrit:
Well, strictly speaking, you can install 2004 and use it for 30 days
before it refuses to run. That should give you enough time to call
up, edit, and print any of your files.
I don't know how closely you've been following
On 10 Mar 2005, at 10:25 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I meant call up your files. I should have written ...enough time to
open, edit, and print... The software works for 30 days without any
contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and
reinstall for another 30 days, if you
At 3/10/2005 10:36 AM, d. collins wrote:
Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up?
remains.
Indeed.
Does uninstall/reinstall work?
Phil Daley AutoDesk
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
___
Finale mailing list
Christopher Smith schrieb:
I meant call up your files. I should have written ...enough time to
open, edit, and print... The software works for 30 days without any
contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and
reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to.
I am pretty sure
, unless Sibelius or MusicXML
become a great deal more comprehensive in their conversion coverage.
-Original Message-
From: Darcy James Argue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 04:00 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
On 10 Mar 2005
dhbailey / 05.3.10 / 06:59 AM wrote:
One thought occurs, which might actually be a good business venture to
begin: Somebody could establish a company whose sole purpose is to
issue validation or authentication codes for software, all independent
of the original publishers of those
Fair enough, but wasn't it you who was complaining about EPS not
working? There isn't really any point in fixing it, is there,since you
won't be buying it?
Seriously, it is your choice, but I really don't think you have any hope
that MM is going to change it.
I must admit that I really don't
From: d. collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you're ready to take the risk of not being able to reinstall your
copy of Finale and making changes in any of your files. I'm not.
Ah, but you have no choice. Even without authentication you are very much
subject to that risk. This is the
At 05:08 PM 3/10/05 +, Robert Patterson wrote:
The problem is that as computers change, your
non-authenticated version of Finale eventually will
no longer work.
Put this comment before archivists who meticulously maintain old equipment
and software in order to have access to important
On Mar 9, 2005, at 2:51 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Dennis [is] only talking about the fact that
everyone who upgrades their data to the authenticated version is
flying without a parachute.
I fly without a parachute all the time. In fact, I've never flown
*with* a parachute, and wouldn't know how
With this approach I really don't see your problem: If all you want is
to be sure that Finale will always run on your existing machinery, then
you have that already. When you authorize Finale you get send an
authorization code. This code will work should you ever need to
reauthorize your copy
Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new
machine in x years.
We're also talking about the same machine, after a HD crash, for instance.
That is already no problem, at least on the Mac. I know because I had
that problem (well not a crash, but I changed my HD, and the same
At 3/10/2005 11:17 AM, Robert Patterson wrote:
What we are talking about here is emergency migration in the event of MM's
demise. In that case, it would be acceptable to have a spare computer that
you could reinstall the OS and/or reformat the drive so as to get the
additional 30 days.
Oh, perfect
At 3/10/2005 12:06 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new machine
in x years.
Absolutely, but Microsoft has been far ahead of Apple in that regards.
I still run simple MSDOS3 (I don't remember the date, maybe 1985?) software
on my WinXP system.
At 3/10/2005 12:08 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:
The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated version of
Finale eventually will no longer work. For Mac users this is effectively
already the case. For Windows users the day is coming. If it isn't 64-bit
Windows, it will be Longhorn.
d. collins wrote:
Christopher Smith écrit:
Well, strictly speaking, you can install 2004 and use it for 30 days
before it refuses to run. That should give you enough time to call up,
edit, and print any of your files.
I don't know how closely you've been following this thread, but the
Darcy James Argue wrote:
I think Chris meant call up in the sense of call up your files (i.e,
open your files), not call up Coda.
Of course, your point about What do you do when your 30 days are up?
remains.
uninstall it and reinstall it, while looking around for a suitable
alternative
On 9 Mar 2005 at 23:10, Robert Patterson wrote:
I don't think MM's corporate memory extends back to Fin2.6.3 days,
even if one or two old-timers may still be there that were there then.
There have been two major transformations in the product as well as at
least two major transformations in
actually, I think once the 30 days are up uninstalling won't make a
difference on the mac side. The trail the first install leaves will
still be there.
I've been following this thread with interest and it makes me wonder,
are any of the participants aware of how trivial it is to subvert the
On 10 Mar 2005 at 8:28, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Linda Worsley makes my day. Geeze the way things are going in the
world I may have to gather wood to burn for cooking and heating, buy a
horse to take me around, plant my own garden and keep a root cellar,
etc. To which I can only answer,
On 10 Mar 2005 at 10:25, Christopher Smith wrote:
The software works for 30 days without any
contact with MakeMusic. When the thirty days are up, delete it and
reinstall for another 30 days, if you need to. Probably after Finale
goes under you will be creating your new works on some other
Phil Daley schrieb:
Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS?
I haven't tried it, but I am pretty sure it will run just fine under
Classic. MIDI won't work, but that probably doesn't work under XP
either, does it?
The real problem would be to get it installed, since it came on
Floppies, and no
On 10 Mar 2005 at 18:06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of copyprotection in the
first place. However, I have to agree with others that the escrow
system is something no software company with any sense in their brains
will ever agree to.
I don't see the
At 3/10/2005 03:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Phil Daley schrieb:
Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS?
I haven't tried it, but I am pretty sure it will run just fine under
Classic. MIDI won't work, but that probably doesn't work under XP
either, does it?
I am not sure what that means.
Is
On 10 Mar 2005 at 17:08, Robert Patterson wrote:
[]
The problem is that as computers change, your non-authenticated
version of Finale eventually will no longer work. For Mac users this
is effectively already the case. For Windows users the day is coming.
If it isn't 64-bit Windows, it will
On 10 Mar 2005 at 18:43, d. collins wrote:
The software should continue to run on the OS's it was made for. In
other words, if ten years from now I want to reinstall 2004 (and the
problems going from one version to another are such that this might be
necessary even if I do have further
On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The real problem would be to get it installed, since it came on
Floppies, and no Mac these days has a floppy drive.
I've got an external floppy drive that plugs into my USB port. I even
use it occasionally.
mdl
On 10 Mar 2005 at 19:27, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Noone will ever guarantee you that software x will run on a new
machine in x years.
We're also talking about the same machine, after a HD crash, for
instance.
That is already no problem, at least on the Mac. I know because I had
that
On 10 Mar 2005 at 12:05, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
The recommendation of VMware was a good one for Windows users. VMware
allows you to create an endless supply of throwaway virtual machines
on which you can continue to reinstall the OS from scratch every 30
days. Of course, all you'll need to
On 10 Mar 2005 at 21:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Phil Daley schrieb:
Does FinaleV3 run on any current MacOS?
I haven't tried it, but I am pretty sure it will run just fine under
Classic. MIDI won't work, but that probably doesn't work under XP
either, does it?
I can't say for certain,
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 03:50 PM wrote:
Well, keep in mind that if you choose WinXP or later, Microsoft may
or may not give you an authentication key.
Keep those Win2K installation disks!
I have an OT question.
How many machines can one XP installer install?
I am still staying with
From: David W. Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
I wish I had a nickel for every time this turned out to be wrong in the
computer business.
Your comments here just motivated me to try, but I just realized that
before I moved in 2000, I trashed the old Finale 2.01
On 10 Mar 2005 at 23:16, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
On 10 Mar 2005 at 18:06, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of copyprotection in the
first place. However, I have to agree with others that the escrow
system is something no software
On 10 Mar 2005 at 16:34, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 03:50 PM wrote:
Well, keep in mind that if you choose WinXP or later, Microsoft may
or may not give you an authentication key.
Keep those Win2K installation disks!
I have an OT question.
How many machines can
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 05:24 PM wrote:
The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be authenticated
on only one PC.
Sorry for a dumb question but what does this mean?
Would un-authed XP bite me?
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
http://a-no-ne.com
On 10 Mar 2005 at 21:55, Robert Patterson wrote:
From: David W. Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
I wish I had a nickel for every time this turned out to be wrong in
the computer business.
You cut out the first half of my sentence, which read:
Well, if history
On 10 Mar 2005 at 17:33, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 05:24 PM wrote:
The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be
authenticated on only one PC.
Sorry for a dumb question but what does this mean?
Would un-authed XP bite me?
Yes, it stops booting after N
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005 at 17:33, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
David W. Fenton / 05.3.10 / 05:24 PM wrote:
The former can install on any number of PCs, but can be
authenticated on only one PC.
Sorry for a dumb question but what does this mean?
Would un-authed XP bite me?
Yes, it stops
From: David W. Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's *possible*, but there is absolutely no evidence available to
suggest that it is likely, let alone certain, as you assert.
On the contrary, I speak with absolute certainty, because I have forever on my
side. It is virtually certain that
At 01:33 AM 3/9/05 -0600, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
I am aware of the language used on the Finale site, but it doesn't
change the fact that you are not acquiring any ownership rights in the
software, but agreeing to acquire a non-exclusive permission to use the
property of MakeMusic! under the
At 06:07 AM 3/9/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
So what is your suggestion as to what sort of bargaining power we have
to use against MakeMusic?
The operant really is we, isn't it?
What I hoped was that, as soon as the new scheme appeared, we Finale users
en masse would refuse to upgrade. Period.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
[snip]
As usual, Dennis's long answer. The short answer on bargaining power: It's
not too late. Skip all further upgrades. Tell them why. The minute they
escrow a fail-safe mechanism is the minute I'll place my order. Anyone else?
And lose the improvements that make my
Further, it gets a bit more complicated in that you do own
the disk and jewel box it came in
It's a minor point, but whenever I get one of those if you break the seal CD
envelopes, I always just unstick the bottom of the envelope so that I haven't
agreed to anything. Also, I like the seals,
At 08:43 AM 3/9/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
And lose the improvements that make my income-generating work easier,
faster, better?
Yes, even if for one year, in order to send the message.
It's also hard to skip upgrades when others with whom you work are
upgrading -- since the earlier version
victimization
disguise offensive tethering practices.
Dennis
I quite like the scheme. I get to use Finale in my office and on my laptop. No
messing about with CDs and when I've phoned because my hard drive has blown up
or I've changed computer they're always very cool about it.
I don't
dhbailey / 05.3.9 / 08:43 AM wrote:
And don't suggest they go back to the insert the original installation
CD anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with Finale97 (or was it
98) and very quickly scrapped that idea over the hue and cry of
complaints.
Both 97 and 98. My 98 CD is lost
At 02:24 PM 3/9/05 +, Simon Troup wrote:
I don't feel like a victim
Yet.
Just thought I should put one on record as you're
using fairly inflammatory language that certainly doesn't square
with my experience.
Yet.
In view of the current something for nothing climate where
piracy is rife,
I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last
hours, should the time come sooner rather than later.
Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or is this
just speculation?
--
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
-
Finale IRC channel
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
Noel, you're conflating two issues. Your argument is about language and
law. Whenever anyone buys a physical manifestation of 'intellectual
property', they purchase a certain body of rights, implicit and explicit.
That's IP101.
And that's not the issue. The issue is
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
As usual, Dennis's long answer.
And as usual, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Here's how I
see it:
* No current user of the Fin2004/2005 seem to see the current CP system
as a problem.
* If MM goes down, the clause #1 in the Fin2005 license agreement
d. collins wrote:
I've purchased software and saw the company go out of business less
then one year after that (and couldn't get a new key to reinstall it),
so I certainly understand Dennis's concern. Several others suggested
the recourse to hacks if MM happened to go down. But will they still
d. collins wrote:
In other words, you accept the fact that six months from now, or six
years, or any time, you might no longer be able to use the copy of
Finale you purchased
The real issue is not whether or not one can continue to use Finale; it
is whether one can access the information in a
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
IN all honesty, given the installed base of files out there in Finale
Formats, even if MakeMusic! were to completely dissapear tomorrow, I
doubt that it would be more than a few months before someone else had a
package out that would read files created with Finale.
dhbailey wrote:
So what is your suggestion as to what sort of bargaining power we have
to use against MakeMusic? We could all switch to using Score, I
guess. Except that it wasn't a Mac program, as I recall, so Mac users
would be out of luck, and none of us have machines that have DOS
It astounds me that customers are so ready to defend their own abuse and
and incoveniencing by the companies they pay money to. It is one
thing, as I do, to accept that the world is not perfect. That fighting
an industry-wide rising tide of incovenience and abuse of customers is
tantamount to
On 8 Mar 2005 at 21:58, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
The flaw here, is that the phrases Commercial software is sold and
legal purchaser implies that the user of a particular piece of
commerical software has ownership rights in the software. While it
might be true for some programs, the fact is
But it is truly amazing to watch the victims of said abuse actually
justify it and defend their abusers.
That's just your perception.
Having marketed software that I've written myself I'm quite sympathetic about
MakeMusic!s efforts to protect its investment, call it abuse if you like.
On 9 Mar 2005 at 6:07, dhbailey wrote:
We could all switch to using Score, I guess.
Except that it wasn't a Mac program, as I recall, so Mac users would
be out of luck, and none of us have machines that have DOS installed
anymore, so the rest of us would be hard pressed to make that
On 9 Mar 2005 at 9:40, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
dhbailey / 05.3.9 / 08:43 AM wrote:
And don't suggest they go back to the insert the original
installation CD anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with
Finale97 (or was it 98) and very quickly scrapped that idea over the
hue and cry of
On 9 Mar 2005 at 15:34, Simon Troup wrote:
I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last
hours, should the time come sooner rather than later.
Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or
is this just speculation?
Would you advise a parent who
On 9 Mar 2005 at 16:56, Jari Williamsson wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
As usual, Dennis's long answer.
And as usual, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Here's how
I see it:
* No current user of the Fin2004/2005 seem to see the current CP
system as a problem.
Non
On 9 Mar 2005 at 10:28, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
If a product made use of an authentication scheme such as that used by
MakeMusic!, and failed to provide public maps of the formats of data
files inhibiting or preventing development of other packages which
might read and write data files of
I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last
hours, should the time come sooner rather than later.
Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list or
is this just speculation?
Would you advise a parent who supports a family of 6 to only
On 9 Mar 2005 at 11:20, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
d. collins wrote:
In other words, you accept the fact that six months from now, or six
years, or any time, you might no longer be able to use the copy of
Finale you purchased
The real issue is not whether or not one can continue to use
On 9 Mar 2005 at 13:20, dhbailey wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
IN all honesty, given the installed base of files out there in
Finale Formats, even if MakeMusic! were to completely dissapear
tomorrow, I doubt that it would be more than a few months before
someone else had a package
On 9 Mar 2005 at 19:35, Simon Troup wrote:
But it is truly amazing to watch the victims of said abuse actually
justify it and defend their abusers.
That's just your perception.
Having marketed software that I've written myself I'm quite
sympathetic about MakeMusic!s efforts to protect
On 9 Mar 2005 at 20:30, Simon Troup wrote:
I hope Coda/MM will prepare for their users' needs in those last
hours, should the time come sooner rather than later.
Did I miss something? Have you become the Nostradamus of the list
or is this just speculation?
Would you advise
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
Would you *object* if MM set up a key escrow?
If not, why argue against it?
Does anybody know for a fact that they have not set up such an escrow?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
IIRC (and I may not be), when the registration scheme for Finale 2004
was announced, I believe Coda -- or at least, some people at Coda --
were actually sympathetic to Dennis's ideas. I seem to recall someone
saying something about at least creating some method for a user to
transfer their
What's the point of setting it up if they don't announce it?
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you
*keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 09 Mar 2005, at 4:42 PM, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
Darcy James Argue wrote:
IIRC (and I may not be), when the registration scheme for Finale 2004
was announced, I believe Coda -- or at least, some people at Coda --
were actually sympathetic to Dennis's ideas. I seem to recall someone
saying something about at least creating some method for a
Most corporations don't publicly discuss their own demise nor what steps
they may have taken to support their customers in the event of their
going belly up. That doesn't mean they haven't taken such steps.
But to make a public statement to the effect of when we go out of
business... or even
There's more going on here than blind devotion and the Stockholm
Syndrome.
You seem to give more empasis to MM's interests than to your own long-
term interests.
Setting up a key escrow should not be all that tough for MM to do. I
see no obstacles to their implementing it, either
Jari Williamsson schrieb:
Darcy James Argue wrote:
IIRC (and I may not be), when the registration scheme for Finale 2004
was announced, I believe Coda -- or at least, some people at Coda --
were actually sympathetic to Dennis's ideas. I seem to recall someone
saying something about at least
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
