Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!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: <1991Feb21.203519.27969@qualcomm.com>
Date: 21 Feb 91 20:35:19 GMT
References: <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM> <1991Feb18.211413.9429@qualcomm.com> <1991Feb21.012733.22624@amd.com>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 17

In article <1991Feb21.012733.22624@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>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.
>

The difference being that I don't have to carry around that stupid little card
and have it in my posession when I use the software just to satisfy MS!  This
means a _great_ deal.