and then slowly destroying hypercard and the stack if the stack was messed with in any way.
I take the virtually naive approach that intentions were good and report the situation as clearly as I can while minimizing the providing of information useful in hacking.
The product was sold as part of a class presented by the author of the information. The distribution was extremely limited and the fear was that someone would reverse engineer the data and duplicate the intellectual property and that the lack of sales (if people could get it for free) would kill the ability to support the product. This had happened to other products in the same category. We knew there were bad guys out there who would try to attack the protections and try to get around them.
Because of the miniscule market and the certainty of attack, we were a great deal more aggressive in protecting the code than would make sense for most products. For most products the support nightmare of dealing with people to whom your code has actively caused problems would be terrible. For this situation, it was the right thing to do and it worked. There were no reports of the protections causing anyone harm and there never was a hacked version available.
Kee Nethery
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
