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: <1991Mar1.022838.23783@amd.com>
Date: 1 Mar 91 02:28:38 GMT
References: <1991Feb23.002658.26182@qualcomm.com> <1991Feb25.172829.5135@amd.com> <1991Feb27.070921.24117@qualcomm.com>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 21

In article <1991Feb27.070921.24117@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|>I guess if you can't distinguish between the important and the trivial,
|>then you might conclude that as long as you're a law breaker when you
|>drive at 56 MPH, you might as well go ahead and run red lights and
|>otherwise endanger people's lives.
|
|I see... so my complaint about how Borland's licensing agreement is better than
|Microsoft's is invalid, if you simply ignore all the parts of Microsoft's
|license that don't agree with Borland's.  That should make things much easier.
|Ethics are _such_ a burden...

For what I do, (we each mostly have licenses to all the applications we
use) there isn't any difference between MS and Borland. Would you
really observe Borland's license more strictly than you would MS's? If
you object to the license card metaphor, do you go over to your
colleague every time you want to write a memo to check if he's not
using the word processor already? And he comes over to you. So what's
the difference?

--
San Jose to residents: "Drink Sewage!"