Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!veritas!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: LEGALITY OF SELLING SOFTWARE
Message-ID: <1991Feb21.012733.22624@amd.com>
Date: 21 Feb 91 01:27:33 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.021607.164@amd.com> <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM> <1991Feb18.211413.9429@qualcomm.com>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 20

In article <1991Feb18.211413.9429@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|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.

There is no difference of consequence between Borland's license and
Microsoft's.

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

I wonder if the rest of your reasons are as baseless as this one.

--

It is time for California farmers to share in the water
shortages that the cities have endured for 5 years.