 | | Thoughts on NQC for Scout —Dave Baum
|
| | | With the advent of the Scout SDK, several people have asked me if I plan on making NQC available for Scout. I thought it would be appropriate to summarize my position on this and post it... The Scout SDK looks quite interesting - clearly the Scout (...) (25 years ago, 20-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout —Mike Kory
|
| | | | | Dave, I agree with you--Lego should make the byte codes public. I think NQC has sold quite a few RCX's and it's foolish of them not give out this info. It could only help them. I can see that it isn't a simple thing to add Scout support to NQC and (...) (25 years ago, 21-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout —Robert Munafo
|
| | | | (...) That is definitely true, at least right now. Everyone who downloaded the Scout SDK agreed not to "reverse-engineer" it, and that includes figuring out the download protocol or bytecode format. As I see it, the only way the download protocol or (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Legalities of reverse-engineering (was: Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | [Disclaimer: IANAL!] (...) Hmm, I'm not so sure. Did everyone actually *really* agree not to reverse- engineer it? Look closer at the license agreement[1]...it says that you may not: (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.scout)
|
| | | | |
