On Sunday, April 6, 2003, 10:09:58 AM, you wrote: > Mark Knipfer [MK] wrote:
MK>> For instance, if RIT Labs would allow users to accept the Next Unread MK>> key shortcut behavior where it accept 'n', no hacks would have been MK>> suggested. Since it is possible to do, a hack or slight modification is MK>> available. Such modifications are only done at the end user's risk. > Yes, at the risk of using one's user license or more. I have never heard of any software companies that penalized an end user for modifying a program's compiled code to make it work to their own needs. If a software company would revoke anyone's software license for such, this would probably big make news and possibly blacklist the software company. This would also provide the Open Source arena to further promotions and emphasis on why proprietary software is bad. > Where do you draw the line with these modifications? If someone intentionally modified a compiled program's code and somehow mass distributed it via e-mail virus or alike with the intent to cause some form of damage or harm to its end users and to the software vendor's reputation, then this is definitely crossing the line and would cause the software company to pursue legal matters. > Also, though you haven't distributed a copy of your hacked executable, > you've provided information on how to do the hack. I can think of several scenarios that would fit into this category. It is sort of like you may provide the documentation on how to do something, but the documentation or instructions does not state to do this or that, or implicate that you, as the end user, should do this or that. -- Using The Bat! v1.62o on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
