Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Reason *not* to get new Borland "Turbo" releases
Keywords: copyright public-domain Borland
Message-ID: <4654@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 88 03:55:04 GMT
References: <4203@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> <1315@nesac2.UUCP> <4227@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 16

In article <4227@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
>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.

Borland is too smart to do this (or so I hope).  There is absolutely no
legal precedent for the compiler writer to claim a copyright on the
output of a compiler.  Since shrink-wrap license agreements have no
legal validity, I doubt that Borland would try to bind you to something
meaningless.  The only basis for a copyright claim can be that your C
program contains the library code that Borland owns.  If you own a
legal copy of the compiler, don't use Borland's library, *and* if you
write your own start-up code, you don't owe Borland a thing (except a
big thank-you for creating the bargain of the century in Turbo C).
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi