in reply to Re: pp and setting Windows LegalCopyright in executable header
in thread pp and setting Windows LegalCopyright in executable header

Your post has been considered: "invitation to piracy? If so, vote reap." (see "Nodes to consider").

I didn't think piracy was your intent and voted "edit"; however, having done so, I found I was alone in this and all other votes were "reap".

To avoid having your post removed altogether, I'd recommend you edit the "pack it up" part in such a way that it doesn't suggest packing up the PDK but rather the OP's executable. I believed that was your intent and this was reinforced by the fact that you were offering to do the work yourself: "i can ... add these infos for you.".

The reason I voted "edit", instead of "keep", was mainly because you'd included your email address. Please remove it and replace with "/msg" or similar. Whatever information (email addresses, phone numbers, etc.) that you choose to share in a private message is your business. See "How (Not) To Ask A Question: Don't Give Us Your Email Address" for further details about this.

By the way, I upvoted your post. I thought it was a nice offer (albeit, perhaps, badly worded).

— Ken

  • Comment on Re^2: pp and setting Windows LegalCopyright in executable header [node considered]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: pp and setting Windows LegalCopyright in executable header [node considered]
by james28909 (Deacon) on Dec 12, 2016 at 23:05 UTC

    I do apologize. In no way was I saying I was going to share or give any software. I were referring to packaging up the script for the OP to have an executable and NOT referring to packaging up the PDK. I think the OP ended up going another route anyway. Sorry for the confusion, I'll go back and edit the post to make it clear.

Re^3: pp and setting Windows LegalCopyright in executable header (node considered, keep)
by beech (Parson) on Dec 07, 2016 at 23:53 UTC