Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!ucsd!sdcc6!calmasd!jnp
From: jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Reason *not* to get new Borland "Turbo" releases
Message-ID: <138@calmasd.GE.COM>
Date: 4 Nov 88 17:11:29 GMT
References: <4203@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Organization: GE/Calma, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
Lines: 32
In-reply-to: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM's message of 3 Nov 88 16:57:39 GMT

(Tom Almy) writes:
  >... Borland's license agreement omitted ...
  >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.

Not the compiler, Tom, the runtime library - which of course was
written by them and is now incorporated into your product.

Quite a few companies do this - and it seems rather reasonable,
actually.  After all - they wrote a piece of software, and are simply
asking that their property is properly protected; they aren't
unreasonably burdening anyone.  If you produce commercial software,
you should copyright it anyway - in which case Borland's name need not
show up anywhere (your copyright is sufficient to protect their
interests).

If you produce "freeware" you must simply include a copyright
statement displayed by the executable (source needn't bear such a
copyright statement - since source hasn't any connection to the
Borland runtime library.

The GNU software has a similar requirement (actually more
restrictive), as does Symantec's Lightspeed C (Macintosh). If
Microsoft doesn't have it already - you can bet they will soon.

Caveat: I have no connections to Borland, Symantec, GNU (Free software
foundation?), nor Microsoft. I am not a lawyer.
-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   jnp@calmasd.GE.COM   GEnie: J.PANTONE