Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!decvax!savax!pitaro
From: pitaro@savax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft copyright notice (was: uuslave.c public domain, blah**3)
Message-ID: <512@savax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 12:03:48 EST
Article-I.D.: savax.512
Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:03:48 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 04:01:48 EST
Organization: Sanders Associates Inc., Nashua, NH
Lines: 23
Xref: utgpu comp.mail.uucp:289 comp.sys.ibm.pc:1977

I think this restriction of having to acknowledge Microsoft's C
library is ridiculous.  Suppose I buy a pad of writing paper which is
copyrighted.  (Says so on the plastic wrap).  Am I expected to
acknowlegde the paper manufacturer on every article I write?  Suppose
again that I use a set of copyrighted fonts on my printer.  Should I
have to acknowledge the font designer on every sheet of paper, right
next to the acknowledgement of the paper manufacturer?  The idea that
a compiler's output can be copyrighted by the compiler's writer is
crazy.  I know that we're talking about library functions but if you
stretch your imagination a bit then the translation of "printf(~~)"
into a series of machine code is not much different than the
translation of "a *= b" into "MUL b" other than one of scale.  The
whole issue seems to me to be a result of these bogus plastic wrap
"software licenses" on what is obviously a consumer sale is bogus.  I
go into a software store to buy software, not a license to use
software.

	Michael Pitaro

USMail:	Sanders Associates		UUCP:	decvax!savax!pitaro
	MER24-1583C			PHONE:	+1 (603) 885-9036
	CS 2034				HOME:	46-D Hampshire Drive
	Nashua, NH 03063-2034			Nashua, NH 03063