Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Reason *not* to get new Borland "Turbo" releases
Keywords: copyright public-domain Borland
Message-ID: <4227@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 88 06:05:06 GMT
References: <4203@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> <1315@nesac2.UUCP>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 23


It looks like some clarification is in order.

1). The license agreement does not refer to the runtime libraries at all,
    just use of the compiler (or assembler).  In particular, a program
    written in assembly language and assembled using TASM would still be
    required to have the copyright notice.

2). The other vendors do not require that I put a copyright notice in my
    product, and Borland didn't in their older versions.  All the vendors
    place copyright notices in their runtime libraries.  Borland requries
    the copyright notice even if their runtime is not incorporated.


Also, another gripe, my re-compiled Version 2.0 programs are all 1-2k larger
than the 1.5 versions.  They aren't any faster either.  The only thing I
seemed to have bought is the debugger (which is great, I don't have to give
them credit if I use it :-).  For the "final compilation" I can always fall
back on 1.5, and use MASM for my assembly language programs.

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply