Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!maui.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: LEGALITY OF SELLING SOFTWARE
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.211413.9429@qualcomm.com>
Date: 18 Feb 91 21:14:13 GMT
References: <1991Feb12.200901.9129@hellgate.utah.edu> <1991Feb15.021607.164@amd.com> <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 21

In article <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM> mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>>Consider that the newer products like Word for Windows have the concept
>>of a printed "license" card which you receive when you purchase the
>>software package. The person who is the physical holder of the card has
>>the right to use the software. 
>
>This "concept", while unique because it attempts to address the question
>of installation on multiple machines yet only having a single user at a time,
>has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

I much prefer the Borland licensing agreement, which has got to be one of the
most reasonable in this world of worthless licensing agreements.  I own Sprint,
and I can have it installed at work and at home legally, because the Borland
license says that I can put it on as many machines as I want, as long as I
never run more than one copy at the same time.  So in your case, as long
as you had as many copies of the program as could be run at once, you have no
more hassles.

Just another in a long string of reasons why I prefer Borland over MS...