Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ubvax!ames!killer!chasm
From: chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Reason *not* to get new Borland "Turbo" releases
Summary: Borland is not far from old MSC and Lattice
Keywords: copyright public-domain Borland
Message-ID: <5997@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 4 Nov 88 19:32:03 GMT
References: <4203@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 54

In article <4203@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>, toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
(program licensing requirements changed)
> Now: "Programs that you write using [name of product] may be used, given
> away or sold without additional license or fees, as long as all copies of 
> such programs bear a copyright notice.  By 'copyright notice,' we mean either
> your own copyright notice or, if you prefer, the statment, "Created using 
> [name of product], Copyright (c) Borland 1988.'"
> 
> So if you want to write a program for the public domain, you now have to
> give Borland credit for their compiler.  No other compiler I now have
> (and I have compilers from ten other companies) place that restriction.
> 
The Microsoft compilers I own (except for perhaps 5.0 and 5.1 -- I haven't
checked the license agreements in the last year or so) and the Lattice C
compiler have very similar requirements.  And I cannot find my WATCOM
licensing agreement, but I believe it is even more stringent in its
requirements.

In any case, source code need not have anything added, and with most of
the compilers I know of that come with requirements of copyright notices
the runtime library inserts them in the code behind your back.

The only compiler I have ever used (other than those covered by nasty
mainframe licensing agreements I never even saw, but that applied anyway)
that did not have some similar requirement was the C86 compiler by
Computer Innovations (and they may have started doing this since then --
I used C86 back when I first bought my Heathkit computer 3 or 4 years ago).

On the other hand, look at FSF's Bison and GCC licenses -- no flame intended,
they are trying to keep from being ripped off just like Borland, and in the
process of bending over backwards to be nice wound up with a legalese mess
that sounds terrible (but lets you do almost anything except rip off FSF or
the public at large).

Also, note that "a" copyright notice is required, not "Borland"s copyright
notice -- I believe this it to avoid a legal problem with Borland's runtime
library becoming public domain if distributed as part of a public domain
program.  And if you do not use the Borland runtime library (say by building
code for Minix -- with your own long divide routines, etc) even that requirement
disappears.

Sorry for being so longwinded, but we have gone through this discussion
several times and the problem cannot be significant (if it is really public
domain, release the source, and if not, then its OK with your own copyright
-- or Borland will probably let your trade-secret agreement substitute (any
comment from someone from Borland?)).

> Tom Almy
> toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM
> Standard Disclaimers Apply


Charles Marslett
STB Systems, Inc.          <-- apply all standard disclaimers
chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us