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: <1991Feb23.002658.26182@qualcomm.com>
Date: 23 Feb 91 00:26:58 GMT
References: <1991Feb21.012733.22624@amd.com> <1991Feb21.203519.27969@qualcomm.com> <1991Feb22.171604.17811@amd.com>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 22

In article <1991Feb22.171604.17811@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>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.
>
>Good grief! Do you really think MS is going to come to your house and
>demand you produce the card? It is a metaphor, just like Borland's book
>analogy.
>

No, I don't think the MS police are going to come looking for me if I don't
have the card.  However, if I want to use the software without being in
violation of the license, I must have that card.  It's a question of whether or
not I want to honor the license.  If I don't observe that part, why should I
follow the rest of it?  The difference is that Borland, in this case, never
requires me to have any card, etc to use their software, enabling me to use
it in multiple locations without being in violation of the license and having
to carry around that stupid card.  In practice, I'm sure it ends up being the
same in most cases, users of the MS product just say, "to hell with it" and use
it wherever they want, but Borland does not make you make the ridiculous choice
of using their stupid card or violating their stupid license.