Slashdot Mirror
Borland C++ Can No Longer Be Used To Make Free Software?
Updated 05/17 7:33am by C: Michael Swindell from Inprise sent us the following clarification on the licensing issues involved:
"The Ask Slashdot article posted today asserted that the C++Builder 3 license somehow restricted distribution of source code. We do not have, and never have had, any license that would do such a thing. The reader mistook the application of the restriction on redistributables (such as the Borland RTL and VCL libraries which are distributed with source code) as a restriction on redistributing source written by a developer. We would never make such an unusable restriction. We are all developers over here. We would laugh anything like that out of the campus in a heartbeat. There is a passage further down in the license that explicitly explains that there is no restriction from distributing your own source code or even C++Builder IDE generated source code without restrictions:
- You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you generate with a Borland source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Borland to be your code.
- I've attached a copy of the entire License agreement that came with C++Builder 3. We would really appreciate it if you were able to update the main article so that slashdot readers, customers, and developers don't get the wrong idea about our license. We have already been flooded with questions and complaints about this today and have spent a lot of time explaining the reader's mistake on the phone, in email, and in our newsgroups. (C: the attachment was corrupted in the email message but it should be up sometime today)
Thanks for clearing up all of the confusion, Michael. Here's a copy of the licence, reprinted by permission, for your perusal.
BORLAND C++ BUILDER
BORLAND NO-NONSENSE LICENSE STATEMENT AND LIMITED WARRANTY
IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY
This license statement and limited warranty constitutes a legal agreement ("License Agreement") between you (either as an individual or a single entity) and Borland International, Inc. ("Borland") for the software product ("Software") identified above, including any software, media, and accompanying on-line or printed documentation.
BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. If you are the original purchaser of the Software and you do not agree with the terms and conditions of the License Agreement, promptly return the unused Software to the place from which you obtained it for a full refund.
Upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of the License Agreement, Borland grants you the right to use the Software in the manner provided below.
This Software is owned by Borland or its suppliers and is protected by copyright law and international copyright treaty. Therefore, you must treat this Software like any other copyrighted material (e.g., a book), except that you may either make one copy of the Software solely for backup or archival purposes or transfer the Software to a single hard disk provided you keep the original solely for backup or archival purposes.
You may transfer the Software and documentation on a permanent basis provided you retain no copies and the recipient agrees to the terms of the License Agreement. Except as provided in the License Agreement, you may not transfer, rent, lease, lend, copy, modify, translate, sublicense, time-share or electronically transmit or receive the Software, media or documentation. You acknowledge that the Software in source code form remains a confidential trade secret of Borland and/or its suppliers and therefore you agree not to modify the Software or attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
If you have purchased an upgrade version of the Software, it constitutes a single product with the Borland software that you upgraded. You may use or transfer the upgrade version of the Software only in accordance with the License Agreement.
This Software is subject to U.S. Commerce Department export restrictions, and is intended for use in the country into which Borland sold it (or in the EEC, if sold into the EEC).
ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS FOR BORLAND C++ BUILDER
Borland grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to install and use the Software for the sole purposes of designing, developing, testing, and deploying application programs which you create. You may install a copy of the Software on a computer and freely move the Software from one computer to another, provided that you are the only individual using the Software. If you are an entity, Borland grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization ("Named User") to have the right to use the Software in the manner provided above.
GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES
You may write and compile (including byte-code compile) your own application programs using the Software, including any libraries and source code included for such purpose with the Software. You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software without additional license or fees, subject to all of the conditions in this statement.
Borland products may include certain files ("Redistributables") intended for distribution by you to the users of programs you create. Redistributables include, for example, those files identified in the accompanying printed or on-line documentation as redistributable files, those files preselected for deployment by an install utility provided with the Software (if any), or those files pre-selected by a third party install utility which operates under control of an install script which Borland has certified (if any) for use by licensed users of this Software for deploying applications. In any event, the Redistributables for the Software are only those files specifically designated as such by Borland. From time to time, Borland may designate other files as Redistributables. You should refer to the documentation, including any "readme" or "deploy" files included with the Software, for additional information.
Subject to all of the conditions in this statement, you may reproduce and distribute exact copies of the Redistributables, provided that such copies are made from the original copy of the Software or the copy transferred to the single hard disk. Copies of Redistributables may only be distributed with and for the sole purpose of executing application programs permitted under this statement that you have created using the Software. Under no circumstances may any copies of Redistributables be distributed separately. Regardless of any modifications which you make and regardless of how you might compile, link, and/or package your programs, under no circumstances may the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the Software (including any portions thereof) be used for developing programs by anyone other than you. Only you as the licensed user (or the Named User for your entity) have the right to use the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, or other files of the Software (or any portions thereof) for developing programs created with the Software. In particular, you may not share copies of the Redistributables with other co-developers. You may not reproduce or distribute any Borland documentation without Borland's permission.
The license granted in this statement for you to create your own compiled programs and distribute your programs and the Redistributables (if any) is subject to all of the following conditions: (i) all copies of the programs you create must bear a valid copyright notice, either your own or the Borland copyright notice that appears on the Software; (ii) you may not remove or alter any Borland copyright, trademark or other proprietary rights notice contained in any portion of Borland libraries, source code, Redistributables or other files that bear such a notice; (iii) Borland provides no warranty at all to any person, other than the Limited Warranty provided to the original purchaser of the Software, and you will remain solely responsible to anyone receiving your programs for support, service, upgrades, or technical or other assistance, and such recipients will have no right to contact Borland for such services or assistance; (iv) you will indemnify and hold Borland, its related companies and its suppliers, harmless from and against any claims or liabilities arising out of the use, reproduction or distribution of your programs; (v) your programs must be written using a licensed, registered copy of the Software; (vi) your programs must add primary and substantial functionality, and may not be merely a set or subset of any of the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables or other files of the Software; (vii) regardless of any modifications which you make and regardless of how you might compile, link, or package your programs, the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the Software (including any portions thereof) may not be used in programs created by your end users (i.e., users of your programs) and may not be further redistributed by your end users; and (viii) you may not use Borland's or any of its suppliers' names, logos, or trademarks to market your programs, except to state that your program was written using the Software.
The Software might include source code, redistributable files, and/or other files provided by a third party vendor (Third Party Software). Since use of Third Party Software might be subject to license restrictions imposed by the third party vendor, you should refer to the on-line documentation (if any) provided with Third Party Software for any license restrictions imposed by the third party vendor. In any event, any license restrictions imposed by a third party vendor are in addition to, not in lieu of, the terms and conditions of the License Agreement.
All Borland libraries, source code, Redistributables and other files remain Borland's exclusive property. Regardless of any modifications that you make, you may not distribute any files (particularly Borland source code and other non-executable files) except those that Borland has expressly designated as Redistributables. Nothing in the License Agreement permits you to derive the source code of files that Borland has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you generate with a Borland source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Borland to be your code.
Contact Borland for the applicable royalties due and other licensing terms for all other uses and/or distribution of the Redistributables.
ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS FOR BORLAND DATABASE ENGINE
For redistributing programs which include Redistributables of the Software identified as BORLAND DATABASE ENGINE ("BDE Redistributables"), your programs may not be a general purpose database program or otherwise generally competitive with or a substitute for Borland's Paradox, dBASE, or the Borland Database Engine. Further, your programs must require your users to run an unmodified copy of the installation program created by the install utility provided with the Software (if any), or created by a third party install utility which operates under control of an install script which Borland has certified for deploying applications using the BDE Redistributables. You may not redistribute a subset of the BDE Redistributables or circumvent any integrity and/or versioning checks required for correctly installing the BDE Redistributables.
ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS FOR DEPLOYING MULTI-TIER PROGRAMS
This version of the software may include redistributable files identified as "Client Dataset Redistributables" for creating multi-tier application programs for use in a Client/Server computer network. "Client/Server computer network" refers to end-user microcomputers ("Client Computers") connected to another computer ("Server Computer") dedicated to managing communications, storing or accessing common data in a database, and providing services requested by the Client Computer(s). Deployment of Client Dataset Redistributables at a Server Computer requires a Client Dataset Server Deployment License from Borland; please refer to the on-line documentation, including DEPLOY.TXT, for contact information. Note that the Client Dataset Server Deployment License is not required for deploying an application in which the Client Computer and the Server Computer are the same physical machine.
LIMITED WARRANTY
Except with respect to the Redistributables, which are provided "as is," without warranty of any kind, Borland warrants that the Software, as updated and when properly used, will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying documentation, and the Software media will be free from defects in materials and workmanship, for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. Any implied warranties on the Software are limited to ninety (90) days. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on duration of an implied warranty, so the above limitation may not apply to you.
Borland's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Borland's option, either (a) return of the price paid, or (b) repair or replacement of the Software that does not meet Borland's Limited Warranty and which is returned to Borland with a copy of your receipt. DO NOT RETURN ANY PRODUCT UNTIL YOU HAVE CALLED THE BORLAND CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND OBTAINED A RETURN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER. This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the Software has resulted from accident, abuse, or misapplication. Any replacement Software will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer. Outside the United States, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Borland are available without proof of purchase from an authorized non-U.S. source.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, BORLAND AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU MAY HAVE OTHERS, WHICH VARY FROM STATE/JURISDICTION TO STATE/JURISDICTION.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL BORLAND OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF BORLAND HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, BORLAND'S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S. $25; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A BORLAND SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, BORLAND'S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. BECAUSE SOME STATES AND JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES
The Software is not fault-tolerant and is not designed, manufactured or intended for use or resale as on-line control equipment in hazardous environments requiring fail-safe performance, such as in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control, direct life support machines, or weapons systems, in which the failure of the Software could lead directly to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage ("High Risk Activities"). Borland and its suppliers specifically disclaim any express or implied warranty of fitness for High Risk Activities.
U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS
The Software and documentation are provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraphs (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 or subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) of the Commercial Computer Software-Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. Manufacturer is Borland International, Inc., 100 Borland Way, Scotts Valley, CA 95066.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This statement may only be modified in writing signed by you and an authorized officer of Borland. If any provision of this statement is found void or unenforceable, the remainder will remain valid and enforceable according to its terms. If any remedy provided is determined to have failed for its essential purpose, all limitations of liability and exclusions of damages set forth in the Limited Warranty shall remain in effect.
This statement shall be construed, interpreted and governed by the laws of the State of California, U.S.A. This statement gives you specific legal rights; you may have others which vary from state to state and from country to country. Borland reserves all rights not specifically granted in this statement.
"You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software" may... not must.
Posted by Cliff on Wednesday May 17, @12:30PM
from the now-this-can't-be-good dept.
Dunderhead writes "I just bought a box of Nabisco Wheat Snazzies and I'm not sure about some of the ingredients. Phosphoric Acid and Niacinamide? Are those some kind of rat poisons? I don't think I should eat Wheat Snazzies if they contain rat poison! Do you?"
Wow I agree that's really bad. Nabisco had better remove the rat poison from their products before a lot of people die...
Another stupid article got past the Slashdot editors again? This problem is fairly simple... the license for the magazine version of Borland C++ is naturally going to be restricted since you are getting it for free and Borland wants you to buy the full version. I'm surprized that this is the first time people are aware that the stuff included in magazine cdroms are usually demo or crippled in some way!
But it only creates the function wrappers, it's still up to you to go into the editor and write the code of what happens when button X is pushed.
And it does a damn fine job of it. Seriously, it's worlds away from older Borland C++ tools. A project that took 6 months to plan and another 4 to code (and still came out wrong) on Borland C++ 5.1 was redesigned and implemented (and had EXTENSIVE functionality added) in less than 2 weeks using Builder.
I will do Win32 code in nothing else.
ObTopic: I just installed Builder 5 yesterday, and caught a similar piece of the lisence(sp?) out of the corner of my eye. At first, I thought "Oh, great..." but two things hit me. 1) My project is not open source. 2) The paragraphs that follow clarify that they don't want you to write a simple wrapper for their redistributables and sell it. Reasonable enough; their class library and other components are absolutly TOP NOTCH and are worth protecting with whatever legalese it takes.
--Threed
The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.
Well I guess it's self evident, but I'll say it anyway:
Good point.
Your analogy is wrong. The correct analogy is:
...
"You may have an apple, in peeled form only".
Does this mean you are allowed to only have a peeled apple, or that you are allowed to have a peeled apple, in addition to other kinds of apples that are not mentioned in the agreement?
I think it is simply ambiguous wording and that no one should get upset until the wording has been clarified.
However, here is a pet theory: If Borland really is trying to limit the distribution of source, then it is probably because they feel that if you have the source and the binary of a program that was compiled with their compiler, then you can figure out some of the optimization algorithms that they might use. So they might want to try to prevent that by disallowing the distribution of the original source with binaries that their compiler has produced.
If this is the case, then it is completely lame.
But, it's all speculation on my part since I have no idea what they actually meant when they used the word "may" in their license
'GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES'
Compiled programs and redistributables. Not the source code to which you own the copyright and can do with what you wish.
You may produce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you created
what does "You may have an apple." mean?
> the end of free software as we know it. Too bad, RMS. You sucked
>anyway.
What do you mean fool? If anything it only applies to users of Borland C++. People who use GCC aren't affected by this at all. If this does anything, it'll ensure that Borland C++ and other commerical compilers will never get much of a toehold in the linux userbase.
"You do not write C++ code with this."
Actually, you do write code with C++ Builder. C++ Builder is to C++ as Delphi is to ObjectPascal -- it's a slick GUI with drop-n-drag form building that let's you define interactions between controls. But it only creates the function wrappers, it's still up to you to go into the editor and write the code of what happens when button X is pushed.
--
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
but it says nothing about the source YOU generate.
Says nothing? How's that? By "generate", I assume that you mean the source code that you've produced out of your own creativity. But my reading of this is that "programs" comprises both source code and compiled binary, and their license only allows you to redistribute the binary portion of the program. Notice the following:
You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software
This shows that they consider a program to have more than one form, and they've limited redistribution rights to the binary portion of the program.
is that companies should write license agreements (and other legal documents) that make sense. Right? Ambiguity complicates matters unnecessarily and should be avoided. Surely it could have been avoided in this case if Borland had chosen its words more carefully...
-- The Theorem Theorem: "If if, then then."
Being a long time user of borland's products (lately Delphi) I know that the normal terms of the license apply only to borland libraries.
Just for an example if I were to write a delphi app I can distribut all my sorce code and an exe, but not the sorce code to libraries that come with delphi.
Borland has one of the easiest to understand (that I know of) commercial licenses. I can install it on as many machines as I want as long as only one copy of it is running at a time. Which means I can use it at work and home and both copies are leagal as long as no one uses it at the office while I'm using it at home.
So unless something drastic has changed at borland, I am betting that restriction only applies to the borland included code. So if you write an app in C++ Builder you can distribute your code but someone would need a copy of C++ Builder to compile it properly to have all the libraries.
This is just my experience with borland and thier products, I could very well be wrong
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
So, does the C++ builder tool only make it's "own" version of C++ code?
Actually, for the winblows version it has its own extenstions that add functionallity not in standard C++. All of them are prefixed with 2 underscore characters. All of these extensions are built into C++ builder libraries, which all but the Standard versions, have the sorce code. The license is probably restricting the release of the sorce of thier libraries only.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
This sounds like a case of magazine freebie software licensitus to me. Basically, because they're "giving away" the software, they don't want people writing and distributing *any* application without first buying a real copy.
A real license will allow you to distribute whatever to whoever you like, pretty much, without breaching the license agreement.
I won't get into any ethical issues between commercial compilers vs GCC, etc. (the question is more about free-as-in-beer licensing than commercial vs gnu/open source)
Read my online journal: http://chris.carline.org
On the surface it's an interesting idea but a lot of problems arise out of that. First and foremost is that you have to come to grips with the fact that very few people are going to learn a completely new and arbitrary artificial language just to read legal code. This would radically grow the already large gap between the laypersons' understanding of the law and those in legal professions.
So then of course, you would inevitably have to provide natural language translations that would try to capture the intent of the original law but would neccesarily be a bit vague (if not, then why not just write the law in the original language.) This possibly leaves the law open to interpretation or legal defenses based around the fact that nobody but highly trained experts could understand what was legal or not.
In short, the only way to achieve this goal of total precision (of language or otherwise) in the law would be to have a completely pervasive totalitarian regime. And if you've gone that far, what's the point of doing it just for sake of legal precision? The power apparatus doesn't need written laws to perpetuate itself.
cheers, moi
Well, it's actually unclear. It could be parsed to mean "You may distribute in executable form (without source)", meanwhile not taking a position on whether or not you're distributing the source as well. mike
MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
The shareware version of Quake was a gift, and if no one bought the retial version, development would have stopped.
The way I read their license is that Borland is giving you license to redistribute their compiled-in libraries without any additional license fee or arrangement.
They can not exert any control over the source code you "feed" to their compiler, no more so than Microsoft can control your use of the text you enter into their MS-Word application.
This whole issue was built out of a quick-read of a license agreement and a "cup is half-empty" mindset... There is nothing in the snippet I read that causes me any concern...
Ken
non-issue, IMHO...
Ken
Read post #93
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
One does not have to release one's binaries either you know. One does not have to release anything. Borland's license grants you the right to release binaries, it does not say anywhere that you have to.
it was all just a big misunderstanding, nothing to see here, move along now, move along to the next article; we apologize for the inconvenience and will be more clear about it next time, move along now.
;)
At least it doesn't state that you MUST release source code with binary distributions,
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
There's nothing really new here.
The usual intent of this clause is to make sure you don't bundle propritary libraries with your own source code.
In practice, you can send out your source code. After all, in any open source program you're going to be using open source libraries anyway, right?
Steven, Editor at Large, Sm@rt Partner
It could also be read to say that you can't release the generated assembly language, or libraries.
IMHO, it's a worrisome clause and should be repaired.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
just kidding.
In all seriousness, how can "only in executable form" be interpreted to mean oh yeah, and source too?
He thinks it is unenforceable, but admits it's not his field, and, ultimately, you need enough money to stand-off with them through preliminary motions at a minimum should they choose to sue.
There it is.
Didn't the original message say that this was Borland C++ Builder 3.0? The latest version is C++ Builder 5.0 -- has anyone checked the license on it??
I think their intention was to cover the auto-generated code, not all of the code. However, that's not how the quoted part of the license reads...
-Zak
> Read that again. That just guarantees you the
> right to distribute programs that you use THEIR
> compiling tools to create. It isn't saying you
> can ONLY distribute things in binary executable
> format, but that you are allowed to.
Um, it DOES say ONLY. Read it again:
"You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software"
-Zak
This single issue is to me a small minnor issue comparied to others.
Notting that most people here on Slashdot do not develup under Windows and most Windows have allready got the develupment tools they need.
I however thought to take advantage of the situation and download this and start doing some cross platform codework.
Inprise is asking quite a bit of software develupers and to make things worse when I tried to download the software the link to stage one (join some software dev community thingy) didn't work.
To make matters worse there was a refrence to needing turbo asmbler. If I rember correctly Turbo C only compiles asm source code it then passes that on to tasm.exe a smallish version of turbo asmbler and I suspect B C++ dose the same.
But Tasm.exe isn't included with this "free" pacage forcing you to buy turbo asmbler. Might as well have bought the compiler to start with.
In my view there isn't very much free about this "builder".
GCC dosn't require you jump through hoops dosn't have a messed up liccens (ok the GPL is a little messed but not as bad as this) and dosn't require you buy something else to make it work.
I don't like the idea of develuping code under GCC for Windows. GCC isn't ideal for Windows develupment (mostly thanks to the way Windows works) the compiller almost needs to be interconnected with the operating system.
Thanks to Microsoft and Inprise Borland C++ has this advantage.
This means that if I want to do sereous open source develupment I really need Borland C++ or Microsoft C++... But I need a compleate compiler pacage.. not an half baked builder pacage....
I'm going to try and download and install it anyway. If I can find a sutable replacement for tasm then I'll be in busness....
Otherwise... I'll make use of Microsofts handy uninstall feature...
Or Linux handy fdisk.....
I don't actually exist.
Does C++ Builder generate code for you? If it does I bet Borland figures that the generated source belongs to them. Of coure, if it's like most generated code I've seen, people are better off without it (thinking of MFC).
I personally think they should separate out the commercial library code (or whatever they want to protect) from the generated code specifically dealing with the original source file. What they are doing now is akin to telling people that it is illegal to distribute assembly code generated from a C file. That is ridiculous. If the assembly code contains lots of commercial boilerplate they don't want released, (think stuff from _start), they should make it a shared library. Or have an option that outputs just the parts directly coming from the original source file.
-Nathan Whitehead
"Bought a magazine today (PC Authority - Australian magazine). It contained Borland C++ Builder 3, and the licence contained the following"
He bought a magazine that probably had a demo / limited version in it. The license in no way removes him any rights, but is most likely different from the license you'd get purchasing a shrink wrapped version of the product.
Meanwhile, if I was Borland, I would probably not want some script kiddie to just build something out of my libraries, without bringing in any new elements, and then publish MY source code with no credits / royalties paid to me. But then again, it's just my old capitalist side talking.
Third, they're giving the stuff away. They can slap the license they want on it, because my ultimate right is to choose some other environment to work in. No one is cramming the software down our throats. We have options.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
Source code doesn't use Borland C++, therefore the license does not apply to it. What the license is prohibiting is using the Borland compiler to create assembly code, and distributing that.
It states very clearly:
You may produce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you created...
In other words, you are allowed to do that. It doesn't say you aren't allowed to do otherwise...
Sorry.
Noom
it says
..
"You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create..."
it does not say
"You may only reproduce and distribute programs which you create in executable form."
This is explicitly giving a right, not taking one away. You'd think a slew of people who (generally speaking) make their living off absolutely precise syntax might know how to diagram a sentence
"You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software without additional license or fees, subject to all of the conditions in this statement." I think that means you can't redistribute Borland widgets in your program, without paying them some fee, which sounds fair.
Er.. yoohoo... how do *you* tell whether a particular source tarball you receive was edited using the borland C++ IDE? Let alone by the particular one on the magazine?
;)
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
Sorry, but you just can't claim "we need to know more" about that mess.
Although I'd agree about 'use gcc instead' though
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
or does Borland own everything I
write?
Isn't this C++ "Builder?"
Isn't this one of the Software packages which has tons of little shortcuts and simpler ways to make code sort of lego block stuff? I am not sure but it seems like it to me when I took a look at it. Perhaps they are protecting their SW-generated code.
Ruler of creeper, mortal and scallop.
If this is something you got for free along with a magazine I wouldn't be complaining about the licensing terms too much, unless of course this is the ONLY way you can get it.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
As compiler technology moves further into the future, this question will come up more and more.
The question is how much of what I cause a computer to do FOR ME, actually belongs to me? I say all of it, but Borland seems to be pushing the envelope here, since, although, they may have some reasonable clame to their executable code, the code that they generate on my behalf is as dependent on my code, as it is theirs. But more importantly it is dependant on my intellectual property, and my design. Just as if I hired a consultant to generate the same code for me, I would own the code and not a consultant!
Borland is selling a product to serve MY needs in exchange for financial gain. They are trying to reduce the ammount one gets in the exchange. For a company like Borland, that is dying, they should be doing just the opposite.
If the compiler company can define all code built using their compiler as a derivitive work, can they hold your code hostage if you develop it using their platform?
Moreover, if this code is not derivitive, what does that do for the lesser GPL?
There are many questions here, I'm sure most of them, in one way or another will ultimatly serve to point out the gaping holes in current copyright and digital format laws.
John
It's true. It has just been discovered that "Clippy" aka "PaperClipMan" secretly reads all MSWord documents and reports back to MS Redmond all violations. Try it. Type in "MICRO$OFT $UCK$", then save it. Then run tcpdump on your Linux machine and watch for secret messages hidden in the TCP headers.
.doc.
I am going to see if it works with WordPerfect files stored as
All Inprise libraries, source code, Redistributables and other files remain Inprise's exclusive property. Regardless of any modifications that you make, you may not distribute any files (particularly Inprise source code and other non-executable files) except those that Inprise has expressly designated as Redistributables. Nothing in the License Agreement permits you to derive the source code of files that Inprise has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you generate with an Inprise source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Inprise to be your code.
How exactly might the last two sentences be ambiguous? I guess they might be, if you have the IQ of a tin can.
I'd have to agree... I'm certain Borland is simply giving you the right to redistribute their headers/libraries as compiled into your program in executable form *but* you can't redistribute their headers and libraries.
Borland has always had very reasonable proprietary licenses. I do not expect that to change.
That'd be like MS claiming anything bad about them you typed in MSword would be subject to license fees.
Is this idea really that far-fetched? Given their recent legal activities, it wouldn't surprise me...
--
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
Yea, same here! when 4.0 came out it wouldn't even compile a "hello world" program (and I had a program due in 5 days!!). They charged me $30 for the 4.0.1 CD,!! So it's a "yea you paid $200, but for $30 more it will ACTUALLY work..." thingy. I'll never buy again either.
Well, that would fall more along the lines of false pretense/fraud (a criminal offense) than a copyright violation. When you bought the academic edition, you were granted a license on the basis that you were expected to use it for academic purposes. If that was not your intent, you should not have bought the academic edition in the first place.
Dunno if you could prove that. IANAL.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Yup, you're wrong
I have the enterprise edition of builder 5 sitting here and the licence text is the same
However, that part of the license applies only to "COMPILED PROGRAMS AND
REDISTRIBUTABLES", which in my view means that it doesn't apply to "not-compiled programs" = source code.
I don't know about generated stuff though: i'm pretty sure borland wouldn't allow you to release the VCL or something.
uXs
This is my sig. Hooray !
Back in high school, when I took that lame AP computer science class where we used Borland Turbo Pascal, the instructor allowed us to take home disks for it over spring break but she warned us that anything we wrote with it belonged to Borland heh. I thought it was ridiculous back then too :)
Seems to be a lot of speculation here and not many facts.
Firstly, Borland is owned by Corel, who aim to be a major Linux company, so I hardly think they are going to alienate their target market by banning open-source projects from their compiler.
The Standard (cheapest) edition of C++Builder is probably what was on this magazine (not a specially crippled version or anything). Borland are happy to give away lower versions of their products. It makes sense both economically and karma-ly. For another example, If you buy C++Builder 5, you get free Delphi 4 and JBuilder 3 standard editions.
I have C++Builder 3 and C++Builder 5, Professional Editions, and they both have that same paragraph in the licence.
Note that the first line in the paragraph is:
"GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES"
This paragraph *does not even apply* to source code !
They then go into more detailed licence agreements further down, which I must say, are very amiable compared to some*coughMScough* licence agreements I've seen.
Now, my response to a couple of other comments I've seen:
You are allowed to redistribute Borland DLLs (including widget sets etc.) with your executable -- how stupid would it be to release a package in which people can develop apps, but nobody can run them cos they don't have the widgets?
When I distribute my source code, I will include wizard-code it has generated for me -- this code becomes part of MY project (which is mine because I bought this copy of C++Builder). (NOTE this does not include distributing things like system include files).
I think C++Builder 3 has been around since before the DMCA, too.
By the way, "REDISTRIBUTABLES" refers to Borland-supplied packages (DLLs) containing the VCL, widget sets, etc. which the user is allowed to re-distribute. It doesn't refer to the user's source code.
No - the Borland compiler is one of the oldest and fastest out there. Borland have a history of good compilers and good tools (unlike some of the slow bloat crap MS has churned out over the years). All versions right back to old Turbo C 2 have been excellent.
:)
GCC is inferior to both MSVC++ and Borland C++ in compiling and optimising C++ code.
I find C++Builder a joy to work with in Windows, and Turbo C++ was a joy to write DOS programs in. I can't wait until Kylix is finished, and then all you Linux developers can be converted too
Areas which Borland have mastered, they have done superbly - it is much easier to develop some things in C++Builder than in Visual C++. However, there is the problem that MS can add all their new OS features into their compiler straight away, because they know fully what their OS can do, and they know about all undocumented calls, etc. It always takes Borland several months to catch up. This is one thing that splitting MS up might help to resolve: the MS-OS would have to specify their OS better, so that the MS-apps could use it in their apps -- and so could non-MS apps.
C++Builder still has rough edges - for example, the ActiveX importing has bugs and COM implementation is bloaty. But it does many other things superbly, and I fully recommend it to anyone who wants to write Windows (and soon to be Linux) software.
Well, you're right when you say a compiler has nothing to do with your source code. However, this is not the case with C++ Builder, since it is not just a compiler. It also generates code for you. My opinion is that this is an accident, though.
Cut to scene at Borland offices, just after the release of C++Builder
Joe: Sir, a customer reports that C++Builder generated some code for him, instead of just compiling the customer's own code.
Boss: Damnation! I *knew* we forgot to take something out for the final release.
I agree. I think they just wanted to stress that binaries compiled by their compiler had no restrictions imposed by them.
As soon as I saw the first version I wished that
There was no factual accuracy to the slant of the original story as posted. This is very unfair to the organizations who have to cope with the PR backlash.
Sorry, your interpretation is false, it states very clearly:
...
You may produce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you created
Sorry.
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
This subject should never have come up.
Later in the license it says "The Software might include source code."
With regard to the people asking about automatically generated code: "Source code which you generate with an Inprise source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Inprise to be your code."
I believe you are refering to the normal distributions. Remember this distribution cam from a magazine. It may not have the rest of the liscene because it is "special" distrbution.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I wrote to Inprise about that. I want to get something from the horses mouth about it. If I get some understandable I will post it--if they let me.
I suspect since you got it from a magazine that it is a special version with a special liscence. A lot of companies do that. It gets you to use and like there compiler, but it limits what you can do with it.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
You're forgetting the ambigous placement
of the word _only_... which seems to imply
that is the _only_ way you can distribute it
though it could mean you can distribute it in
executible _only_ form...
What it comes down too is it's just a really really poorly written statement.
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
Read up a couple of posts.
The placement of the comma
has a serious legal impact
on the meaning of the sentence.
-Tilde
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
That's not entirly true...
They can _attempt_ to do anything they want... and that sort of restriction is something that our wonderfuly technologically knowledgable courts might not find unreasonable....
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Where does Borland get off thinking they can tell me what I can, and can't publish? I remember a court ruling a while back saying that source code is protected, because it's free speech. This seems to be in pretty clear violation. I mean what's next, I can't distribute anything I write in notepad, without further license agreements with Microsoft? If I'm missing something here someone please enlighten me.
dont_forget
If you look at the miriad Delphi sites out there that make freeware available to the masses, source and all,it should be clear that Borland does not restrict what you can do with your code. However, C++ Builder development -like its older sibling, Delphi- is based on the VCL. VCL source code IS distributed along with the professional/Enterprise versions of these products. Well, the VCL iscopyrighted IP and cannot be distributed along with your project, Nor can you distribute compiled versions of the VCL for DEVELOPMENT purposes. I don't believe this is a restriction on generated code, but I could be wrong. Thus as has been mentioned before, you can distribute your source code.
Sounds to me like they're saying you CAN'T distribute the source code. Of course this is crap. I don't think MS can tell you how to distribute your book just b/c you wrote it using Word. No one can tell you the terms of your own copyright.
Again, thats utter shit. They have no write to tell you what you can do with your source code. They are fooling themselves.
it makes _some_ sense to create some fuss about it so that borland can see that we (=some slashdot readers) care and want to know.
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
Even if it meant what some people seem to think it means ("By compiling source with this program, you transfer the right to distribute that source in ASCII format to Borland"), they're still granting you permission to include your source in non-compiled form in your executable, with a handy little "Write source to disk" button. The problem which did not exist has been solved.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Are you talking about the source which was authored by Borland, or source authored by a licensed user of Borland C++? Because I can't find the word Borland in any of my Delphi source. Anywhere.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
You misunderstood my question if you think post #93 answers it. I know that most, if not all, makers of products which generate code in this fashion do state in their license that that code belongs to the user. I want to know if they have to - that is to say, if it's possible to say "any code generated by this software is the property of Inprise, not the user of the software." or if that section of the license is just thrown in to reassure people.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Almost 100% of the information above is correct. However, although they distribute the source to the Visual Components Library("VCL") as Borland Package Libraries ("BPL"), you CAN get the source to the VCL, at least in the professional editions of the product (which is the only edition I'm familiar with). Because the VCL was originally written for Delphi, the source is in Object Pascal, but it is available. Just thought I'd throw that little tid-bit of information in.
Old Turbo Pascal did put in a notice which said something like "Portions Copyright (C) Borland International 1993" or so...
Same copyright notice all other compilers were putting in at the time.
However their licence did specify that you were the autor of the program and that Borland was reliquishing all claims on the exe as a whole and the portions of source that you wrote.
I want to know if they have to - that is to say, if it's possible to say "any code generated by this software is the property of Inprise, not the user of the software." or if that section of the license is just thrown in to reassure people.
OK, I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that if they wanted to, they would be able to do that. I don't know if it's in the newer Borland compilers, but the Borland C++ 5.0 academic license prohibts you from making an operating system, compiler, database, or 'any other program that could be seen as competing with one prodcuced by Borland' (paraphrasing the license, I don't know what the exact words were, but that's close). So it seems that a compiler vendor can maintain pretty strict control over what is produced by their compiler (I suspect those restrictions may have only been for the academic license, though).
What if it had said this :
You may produce and distribute in executable form only or in a package containing source and binaries or as source alone
It still says "Executable form only" but it's not restricting you to executable form only. Just because it says you may distribute it in one form, it doesn't realy say that you can't distribute it in the other two.
I believe that you are misinterpreting what Borland has the right to claim copyright over. They have NO rights over the source code that you write. Only you and possibly your employer have rights over the source code. By allowing you to distribute binaries of your code, they have given you carte blanche. This means that you are allowed to distribute binaries containing code within the proprietary libraries that they provided with the compiler. The only thing that you are not allowed to do is reverse engineer their code for compilation under a non-Borland compiler. While I believe in open-source software, for a proprietary license, this is not very restrictive.
Actually, in one incarnation of the MSOffic academic versions, you weren't "licensed" to produce commercial documents (my assumption being that if you did, you were subject to additional fees equating to the "full" price).
I am a man of const int sorrows
Borland Can not Restrict you from Redistributing Code you write with your own Mind. However Borlands products like Delphi Etc.. Generate a Heck of alot of code for you and I belive that Code is what it is refeering to.
Nextly. Borland would _Not_ slaughter its chances with the open source community like this. Not to long ago Borland had a survey to see If their would be a need for their product under linux. If the company was thinking about coming over to the Light Side at one point. I really don't see how... Unless someone in Redmond Payed em or something, that they could have a complete 180 Degree turn around like that.
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
An easier workaround would be to simply read the whole license text...
All opinions are my own - until criticized
1. You may distribute the source code you wrote yourself no matter what.
2. You may distribute the executables you produced using (your source plus the compiler plus all necessary libraries).
3. You may *not* distribute the VCL (visual component library) source that comes with the compiler. The source is for your reference only and is copyright by Borland/Inprise/Corel/whoelseiscurrentlyowningwhat oncewasBorland.
4. Then, as the compiler (a backlevel version) came with a magazine (as I understood), different Licensing Conditions may apply compared to what's on the box of a commercally bought product.
C++Builder 5 is the actual version, and a stripped down version (no IDE, Compiler only) can be downloaded free of charge (again: different licensing stuff) off the Borland Website.
Use The Source, Luke!
Maybe they should have human beings (as opposed to lawyers) proofread their license agreements ...
The last time Borland really scared the hell out of me was when they tried, by way of a shrinkwrap agreement, to prevent you from creating a word processor, a spreadsheet or a database program with their compilers.
*That* was shot down by angry customers in a couple of days and didn't even make it into their international versions.
-Martin
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
This reminds me of the time several years ago when the license agreement said you couldn't write an operating system with their compiler. I think the end result was some lawyer stuck it in without really understanding it. Borland seems to have a history of poorly written license agreements.
Geez, it's already been mentioned thaaaat many times when someone had nothing better to do than post another /. rant, that i'm really close of just referring to earlier posts...
But alas, one more time:
It's called "_NEWS_ for nerds". If they had to verify every single fucking story by phoning for their PR departement and waiting until some lazy representant/lawyer gets off their ass and replies to questions whole days would pass.
Misinformations tend to be quickly solved as soon as the comments start pouring, so why care?
Perhaps it's an advanced defense against DMCA?
bun-fhuinneog agam!
I think they mean that you cannot distribute their libraries header files etc which someone else might use to compile and link with a different compiler. It does not make any sense that they would have any control over your sources.
just my opinion
Don't ask why.. but I just happened to be reading over MS Visual C++ license agreement yesterday.
They happened to mention almost the identical thing, except instead of saying "executable format" they use the term "object format".
I found it strange too.. interesting that it's posted on Slashdot the day after I read something almost identical.
Well, since they have no right or claim to your source code, it would be pretty ludicrous for them to try and tell you how you can and can't distribute it. Given a choice between the two possibilities, I think I'll go with the vastly more likely one.
You may produce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you created ...
...with the Software!
By this, I'm sure they mean you can only distribute the binaries, in executable form that are created with the compiler. Since "the Software" doesn't create your source code (if it does, I'm going to get it right away!) you are still free to do with it whatever your little heart desires.
Gah
>Do this:
/. .
>
> 1.edit source code;
> 2.distribute source code;
> 3.compile with Borland;
> 4.distribute binary only;
> 5.go to 1.
Whoo! I think you've just violated the DMCA! That is clearly an algorithm (a program, if you will) that will allow people to get around the spirit with which that license was released if not the word of it. In fact, sir, you should be expecting a call any minute now from my sizable legal staff! You will, of course, have to consent to having this comment removed from
;)
Gah
That means they should be unambiguously worded and in a language that the person who executes the license understands.
You mean Perl, right? Seriously though, all licenses have to be worded that way precisely because it is so unambiguous. "Lawyerese" is diffucult for the layperson to understand because lawyers can pick "normal" English sentences apart and find about twenty different meanings for each one. As software licenses, in a court case or similar situation, will be picked apart by lawyers eventually, they have to be written in such a way that the lawyers will only be able to find one interpretation.
Maybe shrink wrap licenses should be the "lite" version of the license that explains what the terms are, with the original source license available for the lawyers to tangle over.
Gah
Hmmm, you bought the compiler with a magazine? Borland is in the habit of creating [free|cheap] school versions. They allow you to use the compiler to your hearts content, but not sell the final EXE. Looks like you got one of these versions. I don't know if they do, but it could be easy to police, too: simply insert a flag in every EXE created... >:)
---
"What, I need a *reason* for everything?" -- Calvin
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
What happens if I write a program that outputs its own source code? I could distribute it only as binary, and people would still be able to get the source code...
--
This space left intentionally blank.
I think this statement pertains more so to business and entrepreneurs. One major consequence of this statement is that code writers are not required by default to release the source code, such as that required by the GPL.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
this license is probably made specifically for copies of borland c++ builder 3.0 that are given away with this magazine....
-- http://electronicintifada.net --
That'd be like MS claiming anything bad about them you typed in MSword would be subject to license fees
... which I'm sure they've been considering.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Slashdot posts stories like this one in order to capitalize on the knee-jerk reations of readers. When everyone finally realizes that this was a non-issue from the beginning, it is already off the radar (or, more concretely, it has been relegated to "older stuff"). You can't create an army of Linux zealots without convincing them that the entire world is together in a conspiracy to destroy the open source paradigm.
If Slashdot really wants to do something to improve the quality of the discussions, they should do a little bit of research on their own rather than paving the way for readers to jump to conclusions. I truly wish that someone would get a clue on journalistic ethics so that we could have a real discussion of issues rather than the lunatic ravings the current tabloid style promotes.
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
I am glad to see that, being a TA here at the university of Pittsburgh for CS401 Intro to Computer Science where we teach them to program in C++ and we use Bordland in the CS computer lab (I wish they would move to linux & gnu cc ) and we requier the sturdents to hand in not only the program but also the source (which in turn gread on my linux hox at home)
Exactly, a bunch of wealthy celebrities get up behind a podium, and tell everyone that they're arm-free, well, that's fine and dandy, you don't have to live somewhere where OTHER people are armed with ILLEGAL guns which more laws will not eliminate. Anyways, the second ammendment is supposed to be for protection against tyrranical governments which anyone who has read one or two pages out of a grammar shool student's history book knows is a common problem that has deep roots in history (in fact, I would probably say as far back as the first organized government). Oh, just how many murders a year are committed by assult rifles anyways? I believe it is less than one percent. Tralfamadorian-the-responsibly-armed-citizen
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
The problem is that this phrase could be interpreted in more than one way:
The arguments seem to center on choosing one of the first two meanings. The one that makes the most sense to me is the second (though of course IANAL), and I think Borland or anyone else would be hard pressed to prosecute anyone following the clause to the letter and using the second interpretation.
unDees
"I call a baby goat a 'goatse.'" -- my non-Internet-savvy 6-year-old stepdaughter
This license really sucks. I first learned to program on a Borland C++ compiler and I have a really hard time finding reasons not to distribute source code with my programs. Is there some kind of legitimate reason for such a restrictive license? Some obsure Australian law maybe?
"You point your finger at the moon, the fool stares at your finger."
The _whole_ program is more than just the code you write. Technically, it includes the code of every library you link. They simply want to make sure you don't go around passing out the source of those libraries which you didn't write.
> Um, it DOES say ONLY. Read it again: > "You may reproduce and distribute, in > executable form only, programs which you create > using the Software" What happens when we move the comma.. You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form, only programs which you create using the Software Now it looks a little different to me.
kill_9_1
Now, the legal-language Borland used previously was clear about what they felt able to stop you from doing - essentially you couldn't make a language runtime that included their runtime - so, for example, you couldn't write a fortran system and use Borland's CRTL to implement all of the runtime features of fortran - as you'd just be repackaging their CRTL.
If their language means "you can't distribute anything you compile with this", I doubt that would hold up in court.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
This means that you can not redistribute source code that was written by using their "precious" Software. You can redistribute executable files as well as libraries, extensions etc. However you can not redistributed the source code that was written to compile specifically in their Software, so basically, if you are using any libraries specific to their "Software" and your code will not compile or will not work without those libraries, you must pay additional fees to Borland/Inprise to destribute your source code.
This pisses me off, since I used to like Borland and I always distributed my source with my applications without paying anything to anyone.
You can't handle the truth.
That's alright, because I much rather use vim (even in MICR#%%^'s world) instead of their editor, and as such the software was created with vim, not Borland. It's not like I compiled anything (except for work) with anything other than gcc in the last year or so. Keith
yeah...well, i get paid to... SUCKER!
I`ve had worse jobs. For the record, Linux is shit.
...i used to use their compilers before VC++...god, that was years ago...
I purchased a copy of Borland C++ 4.0 Pro, and it has the same wording and restrictions, so I don't think that's the case.
I would like to believe that the wording has simply been misinterpreted.
Well, you're right when you say a compiler has nothing to do with your source code. However, this is not the case with C++ Builder, since it is not just a compiler. It also generates code for you. My opinion is that this is an accident, though. I really don't think Borland really does not want you creating open source software with their products. Even because it does not concern them in any way.
Recently I shelled out $70 for the Cygnus Gnu Pro Toolkit. It claimed that it could optimize better than MVC++. I don't remember if it said anything about Borland C++, and unfortunately I don't have the box with me.
I guess they all make thier claims...
I used Borland on DOS/Windows quite a bit in college, but since then have been stuck with the company tools. (VisualAge for C++ and C++ Set for AIX, as well as MVC++).
I'm not big on profiling anyways, but my impression from the GNUPro Dev Kit marketing was that the g++ tools were pretty good at optimizing.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
Man, you must have watched *too* many A-Team episodes. You sound like Mr. T.
Isn't gcc & egcs and the Cygnus (read RedHat) visual tools better (optimizing-ly) than Borland anyways? I bet the only thing Borland might have brought to the table is more developers who coud crossover from programming in other environments.
These programmers probably work for big software companies who are unikely to want to distribute thier stuff in anything but executable format, which means proprietary apps for Linux.
Obviously, Borland likes that idea.
You think that companies would see the parallel between (open-source vs. proprietary) and (IBM PC compatible vs. Apple proprietary). If Borland let you write open-source then they gain more acceptance...they could end up hooking you with some other tools (which is not always a bad thing)
?
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
Well, if it's anything like my venerable old copy of Turbo Pascal, the compiler puts the libraries into the compiled code in blocks .. the later version I have allows you to select which blocks of libraries you want in the build, but it still crams a lot of Borland code in there. I do remember disassembling the results one time and finding a copyright notice from Borland hidden in the binary ..
..
My guess is that to get around this, you'd probably have to write your own compiler and compile it with Borland C++ to get to where you could write GPL-safe code. No, there's no way in **** they can stop you from distributing source, but they can sure hassle you about bundling their libraries with your binaries. They've never hassled me about it, but I'm sure if I distributed something popular enough, they'd come after me for a piece of it.
Of course, this also doesn't stop you from developing the code on their C++ to speed up the edit-compile-run-crash cycle with their tools, then port it to a clean compiler once it works
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
It doesn't mean anything to me...source code is just source code. Has absolutely nothing to do with the compiler...*YES* if you use their premade quick-program macros which generate source...or use any source they provide...they can restrict it.
But, fact of the matter is...if you have code you wrote...it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you used borland or not. That'd be like MS claiming anything bad about them you typed in MSword would be subject to license fees.
Its the lawyers being ultra paranoid that somebody might pirate their header files. It's not that people can't get almost identical header files elsewhere, its just that THEY created them, so YOU can't use them. Then they decided to make the terms more general so that they cover everything.
Its a bit like the copyright notice in the UNIX true program (the empty script version, not the GPLed version with the help options)
write a program that replicates its source, distribute that =)
yeah, I know, not worth it
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
[ approaching AI ]
Yes, but the first line reads:
GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES
Surely this means that anything that follows does not apply to source code?
Jeff
stty erase ^H
You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software
Exactly, the source code is not created using the software, (it is created by you), so Borland are not preventing you distributing it.
Jeff
stty erase ^H
I think that Borland is coming from the perspective that additional licensing fees were required to distrubte binary only versions of software compiled with their compiler. It seems to me that Borland is saying 'No, you don't have to pay to have this basic functionality'. Sounds good to me. . .
My apoligies about being unclear.. When I used to use Win/Dos, I'd program in BC and I remember hex editing the executables it created a few times and finding a copyright string saying "Borland C++" or something somewhere near the end of the exe it creates
Actually it does.. if you look through the source, you can find it near the end
I think you guys are reading it incorrectly. It is saying you can distribute your binaries and your code without further charge by Borland.
I took English classes as well, and at various times in my life have had to fall back on my skills with the English language to make a living.
To KEEP that living I've had to learn various legal skills as well with regards to copyright law and the various ways contracts and licenses are handled to assign them.
Your skills with the English language are not just useless with regards to legal language, but I'm afraid they could be dangerous to yourself.
I've known many people who were screwed out of millions, literally, because they just didn't understand, and refused to be told, that legal language and English have very little to do with eace other. The placement of the comma is CRITICAL in legal language, and means something SPECIFIC.
We are talking legal language here and it is ONLY the opinion of lawyers that count.
I am sorry, if I showed the lawyers the whole thing it wouldn't change anything. I didn't put in the object of the sentence because the object because the object is implicit in the legal argument and we all here knew what the object was.
I agree that Borland has no legal say over code that you yourself generate. That is yours. You hold the copyright. But that is a *seperate* legal issue to what the license says.
Thank you for writing that before I had to. The meaning of the sentence is quite clear really.
Now, would you kindly do me the favor of writing a similar analysis of the Second Ammendment?
I'm tired of explaining to the antigun nuts that it DOSN'T say only a militia can bear arms.
In a promo appearance for the Milliom Mommies March, ( Or Thousands of Mommies Milling about and Ranting if they wish to use truth in advertising), I actually heard the orginizer claim that the Second Ammendment specifically ALLOWED Congress to regulate arms and praise the founders for putting a clause limiting freedom in the Bill of Rights!
Where do people learn their history, logic, and reading cognitive functions these days?
Oh yeah, public school. Nevermind.
Outfits such as Walnut Creek have been distributing source code for use in Borland for years. If Borland had such a big beef with it they'd have done something about it by now.
Borland's big problem is with certain libraries (OWL, etc.) which were distributed in source and binary form with Borland C++. They're basically giving you free rein to link their libraries into binary-only software, but not to distribute the sources of those libraries along with their software.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
-You can distribute your own source code.
(since it is yours)
-You can distribute executables compiled with C++B
(since they permit it in license)
-You can't distribute source of VCL (Visual
Component Library), which comes with Borlands RADs
(the *only* part)
Just my version of it.
They May issue of PCPlus has the Borland C++ Builder on the disk in a full version, but the license "agreement" says BORLAND C++ BUILDER This software can only be installed onto a PC once. It is NOT shareware. Applications developed using the software may not be deployed. The software is for personal use only by software developers and may not be used for development or teaching in a commercial or educational establishment. Programs and applications that have been constructed with the software may not be distributed. The software is provided only with the aim of allowing the user to learn the use of this software. For distribution rights of owner generated applications, the owner will have to purchase a copy of additional software or a package designed for this purpose.
Ooh, thanks a lot - good thing i hated the interface and removed the program right away - no difficult moral dilemmas!
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I'm really going to disagree that there is a big difference between "legal language" and english. There are certain words that are "terms of art," which have a specific meaning that might not be the meaning that is the most common, but english is english. And, frankly, I don't think that comma changes all that much. So there.
I asked about this today on a forum on Borland's site and received a reasonably prompt response from a representative at Borland. Here is his response to this issue, verbatim:
.sig?
---
That portion of the license isn't referring to your own source code. It's
referring to compiled programs and redistributables (as defined in the
license), not your own source code. Information on source code is further
down in the license:
"All Borland libraries, source code, Redistributables and other files remain
Borland's exclusive property. Regardless of any modifications that you
make, you may not distribute any files (particularly Borland source code and
other non-executable files) except those that Borland has expressly
designated as Redistributables. Nothing in the License Agreement permits
you to derive the source code of files that Borland has provided to you in
executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source
code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing
source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you
generate with a Borland source code generator, such as an Application
Wizard, is considered by Borland to be your code."
Tim Del Chiaro
Product Marketing Manager - C++Builder
Inprise/Borland
---
.sig? Who needs a
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
True, but this isn't about a compiler.This is about the c++builder, which is a RAD-tool and it generates many lines of code for you. It is possible that someone just fucked up writing that licence, right now it doesn't say a word about the source, only about distributing the program in executable form. (My english isn't best possible, but... ) That part maybe could be understood in a sense that it also allows the exec-only distributing. But that would still mean a mistake in writing the licence, at least I think that licences should be made so that there is only one way to understand them.
When you smile, the world laughs at you.
You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create...
Somehow I just don't believe they can disallow distributing the source. I don't think this is legal and even if it was, how are they going to prove that the source was made using their tools. Of course the c++builder creates some config files that they maybe can have control over.
(please forgive my bad english)
When you smile, the world laughs at you.
I would interpret the license the same way that you do. However, since I cannot see any benefit to Borland's limiting how I give away my own code.
;-) Then again, I could be wrong...
I know many compilers provide the source to their libraries so that you can step through them when debugging. Perhaps Borland is intended to ensure that you don't propogate their source code with this limitation. Assuming they give you the library source; something I can't check right now.
Looks to me like sloppy license writing, not offensive practices.
--My opinions belong only to me, until you realize I'm right
It's a good idea to post questions such as these which are legally obvious, but confusing to us laymen. It helps clear up an important issue. Though I agree that it should have been asked of Borland first, and if they responded with marketing speak, then asked of /.
- Josh "Yoshi" Steiner
---
Xiphoid Process Records - http://xiphoidprocess.com
San Francisco based electronic music.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
This looks like the same license you accept when you download/use the free C++ Builder from their website.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
I have looked at this license, too. I thought it was screwy, but I believe it only applies to the free version. I could be wrong, but I think the license is quite different for commercial distros of the C++ compiler. If anyone else can confirm/disconfirm this, it would be helpful.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
Here I thought that any code you wrote was considered your own code and that you could do whatever you wanted with it, unless of course you work for a company .. but we know about those rules already... Now you have to have permision from the company you buy your compiler from to distribute the source you wrote..??? I doubt it, I think it IS as mentioned in the reply from AliasTheRoot , just a way for them to get you to upgrade ... either that or I do know that in some compilers you can use special code that only works in those compilers and makes others barf. anyway my two cents..
Plus, Borlands compiler is ANSI standard, whild Micro$ofts is not. Just another example of the Redmond Giant thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.
IANAL... But I play one on
In the UK some magazine have put full version of Softweare Such as this on the cover disks and the licenses are different to that of the commerical package. For example (I think this was Delphi) it said that you couldn't distribute the binaries for money only as freeware and do what you wanted with the source code. Could it be that the there is something similar here in that the license is only for the CD covermount and not necessarily the same for the full commerital package? Just my 2 pence
Cheap UK and US VPS
From what I know MVC++ 6 should be ANSI compiant... at least c ANSI, dunno about c++
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Dunno about ver 4.0, but I remember ver 3.1 which was the compiler I learnt c on... oh those where the days... only used the DOS IDE, cause the win one was so slow and shite... DOs one was the dogs bollocks IMHO!! Downloaded the free 5.5 compile the other day and it's not bad at all actually. Who needs an IDE when you got emacs and cygnus ;-)
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
It's not the language, it's the lawyers. Every natural language is a bit fuzzy. This is why one should not pay too much attention to what a legal text says but to what the author obviously meant (obviously = as understood by every halfway sensible person).
Trying to interpret what a missing comma means - even if it obvioulsy is missing unintentionally - is just plain stupid.
I'm not sure if Common Law legal language is really as it has been described above.
I'm currently be trained in German law (at University, we don't have Law Schools BTW), which, being a Civil Law system, works completly different. Here, we try to find out what the author meant, not what he appears to be saying.
Claus
They (Borland) wants you to pay them money so you are able to distribute the source. Sounds fair enough. (Although it would be nice to have free programs from a "free" builder)
--
no sig for you. come back one year.
The "may" apply to "you can reproduce and distribute", not to "in executable form only". If they were saying "You must reproduce and distribute...", that would means you will be legally forced to distribute everything you make with C++Builder, including crap like all your "Helloworld", "Foobar" and "Functiontest" progs you can write to learn a language. This can be read like "You can or not reproduce and distribute programs created using the Software as long as you distribute it in executable form only".
sigmentation fault
Yes, but C++Builder have code generator. Their reasonning is that, as you use code generated by their software (and maybe template also) and as you can use code from Borland (the "including any library and source code included for this purpose with the Software" things). Legally speaking, if you just use the text editor and compilator feature of CBuilder, and if you write your code without using parts of their libraries and example code, you are the copyright owner and do what you want with your code. But if you write code that wouldn't have been writed this way if you were using another IDE, then they own a portion of the copyright. Or at least, that what they say.
Shameless plug: KDevelop is a nice Unix IDE without such stupid restrictions. (I will lose Karma with rants like this).
sigmentation fault
Can anyone explain to me the legal issues behind distributing programs compiled using GNU C and G++? Taken literally, the GPL seems to prohibit the sale of programs without including their source code. I am further confused by the use of libraries included with the compiler, must those be included as source if they are used as part of the program? I also have heard about the libraries being switched from a specialized library license to just plain old GPL, which would supposedly encourage developers to release their source if they use GNU.
I apologize if I sound ignorant, as I have not spent too much time studying the licenses, but if someone could explain this, I would appreciate it.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
[...] including any libraries and source code included for such purpose with the Software. You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software without additional license or fees [...]
To me, this sounds like they're trying to protect you from distributing the "libraries and source code included for such purpose with the Software".
They can't keep you from doing whatever the hell you want with your code. By the same token, they can do what they please with theirs, including not allow you to redistribute it.
It may seem silly and obvious to us that they "can't" do this BUT it may seem neither silly nor obvious to Borland and they may very well have some reason for trying to do so. Think about it would this be the first time a large company has tried to restrict freedom? I don't think so. Is it legal? no Would I put it past a large company the way things are now to try it? Yup.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
They simply want to make sure you don't go around passing out the source of those libraries which you didn't write.
Maybe. But what something means and what something says are two completely different animals to the court. Take the infamous DMCA: did the lawmakers know they were passing a rehashed version of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Was it actually meant to be a repression tool for the party (corporations) in power? If it wasn't... did that change the wording of it?
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
My experience with Borland products has been that when the old version is "given away" on a magazine disc, the license is totally different from the one you get when you buy the latest product off the shelf. I remember having a version of Delphi from a magazine disc which came with a license which didn't allow you to sell executables created with that compiler. The idea, I think, was that you could play around with it for your own use, decide if you liked it, and then if you decided you wanted to use Delphi for commercial use you should go out and buy the latest version. Sounds like this may be a similar case. I would seriously recommend checking out the license provided with the "real" version before pointing fingers and making accusations.
> What is your problem?
What do you mean what is my problem? I have no problem.
I was purely pointing out that many companies, including id software and borland have chose to distribute a cut down, demo product.
This generally isn't done out of the goodness of their hearts. It's done as a loss leader. In the case of Borland it's see how good our old software is? Buy the latest version at retail price and get the manuals. With id you get extra levels and can use all the player made mods. With Redhat you get some extra cd's of stuff and some support.
They are not concerned with whether you distribute your source files; they just do not want you distributing the source code to the Borland header files and libraries with your code. This is reasonable, as iostream.h on one compiler should offer the same funtion as iostream.h on another, so compiling your source will just entail finding a compiler that has the header file you need. The only time I see you getting into problems is if you use proprietary Borland libraries/headers in your code. Then, they want whoever compiles it to have a copy of the Borland software.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Since it was intended for learning purposes only, iirc you were prohibited from using the tools in the production of software that was intended to be distributed. I believe that you still find that sort of license on 'academic' versions of software today.
the binaries to their source
oops. that should be source to their binaries. heh.
---
"Duane Dibbley?" -- Duane Dibbley
I think I remember reading in the license agreement for MS Visual C++ 6.0 that you cannot use it to create applications which do not run on a Windows box. *shrug*
Actually, it's what the license does not state that one should concern themselves.
For example:
No restriction on source code distribution is explicit in the language of the contract.
No restriction is placed on use of libraries provided by Borland.
No restriction is placed upon the authors' "intellectual property" so subsequent distribution should pose no problem.
Additionally, it's important to note that a compiler cannot produce source code. Source code is produced via the combination of knowledge of a computer language, combinatorial logic (using your brain, duh), and your favorite text editor (vi, or emacs, for example). Therefore, it is impossible for Borland to restrict the subsequent distribution of any product that does not require the use of their C/C++ compiler. The compiler merely links and compiles an executable that is specific to the environment that the source code was compiled.
Hence, it is safe to conclude that the premise of this article is in error. Borland can place no restriction on the "intellectual property" that is produced exclusive of Borlands' compiler technology.
Have a look at my database driven web site.
Given that there seems to be a lot of news lately about companies doing Bad Things:
The second-most evil company in the world is:
Of course the question has to be about the second-most evil company, because we already know who the most evil company is...
To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.
No kidding. That was very well put. Somebody should moderate this up. It should also be sent to all the attorneys of all the commercial software vendors. But of course, ambiguity is to their advantage because unfortunately sometimes paranoia sells software..
C++, a derivative of C, was not developed by Borland, nor do they own the rights to it, so, in my humble opinion, they can't tell you that you can't release the source code to a program you compile with Borland C++ Builder 3. So, I say, go hard, release the code, include the GNU GPL, what not, and don't worry, because Borland doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. (Again, these are just my humble opinions, and well, may not exactly be correct).
Geez..sometimes I am amazed by the stupid shit that gets posted here.
The license clearly states "GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES". It does not apply to source code that is genned or written by hand.
Dave
~""~
Actually I'm no English guru but using differently here would imply that they read it different, while using different implies that the act of reading by lawyers is inherently different.
In other words I was saying that lawyers are actually different - not just that they read different.
It is subtle point of style, but not a spelling mistake.
But your point is well taken - it was impolite of me to sic the guy - the spell checker highlighted it and I corrected it at first and then decided I could not do that because I was quoting him.
As for Macs, the closest I ever came to one of those was an Apple ][e I had in college -- does that count?
Hogan
"(incidently [sic], I have no legal training, but I did take English classes once a long time ago)."
Isn't that the whole point - that lawyers read the same sentence different than people who read English?
Thus I would put forward that you don't know what this document actually says.
(I think it means - you can distribute binaries created with your code, but not created with our code. Borland includes a full list of the source for the C library - thus you could recompile them and re-distribute them if not for this clause.)
Hogan
It might help if you would actually read what was written there. The paragraph in question start with: GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES Note the term "COMPILED PROGRAMS". Thus the part in question has nothing at all to do with sources. So, no issue to discuss. Borland does nothing to restrict your ability to GPL or use any other source license you want to.
Bruce E. Wampler, Ph.D.
Doesn't say that at all. Its fairly common legaleese that says, in a round about way, that you cannot distribute the source code provide by Borland with the compiler. Since Borland distriubtes the source for its runtime libraries to its customers, there has always been something that states that that source is the property of Borland. The key here is to read the paragraph heading and not jump to conclusions that satisfy your political principals. Redistributables are defined elsewhere in the license as files provided by Borland to the end user, certain of which are redistributable and certain of which are not.
you got it right. you can ship your own source code and executables. The source code that our wizards generate do not contain copyright notices or other restrictions. you just can't redistribute our run time library source code or static library files. there is a list of DLLs that you can redistribute with your executables - DLLs are executables too. david i vp, developer relations inprise/borland
It's still fairly stupid, but such is the world of commercial software.
Stephan
Does this C++ compiler come with some sort of Borland-only libraries, with the associated Borland-copywritable include/header files?
OK, I'm grasping at straws here, but maybe that's what they're trying to protect.
Of course, it's not like it makes any real difference. If a tool (like a compiler) tries to restrict your freedoms, then use another compiler that does not. Like, say, gcc - which I'm told does C++ just fine.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Borland C++ Builder (and Delphi for that matter) come with the source code for VCL, which is kind of an object wrapper environment that wraps around a whole slew of API's, including Win32, ODBC, etc. and provides a convenient interface to them. Using VCL, it is easy to do VB-style forms generation, databases, and whatever else. VCL is simply awesome.
Obviously, for your C++ Builder app to run, you have to have the VCL libraries installed as well -- just as, for VB, you have to have the VBx00.dll file installed. Borland gives you a license to redistribute VCL, royalty free. However, for obvious reasons, they have not to date wanted to distribute the source royalty free -- VCL is the biggest thing that makes C++ builder better than any other C++ compiler (the other big thing is the IDE, but it seems that VCL does most of the heavy lifting for the IDE).
Incidentally, Borland have tried to get MS to bundle the VCL libs with Windows, and Microsoft has refused (even though the MFC and I think the VB libs ARE bundeled).
The other possibile applicability is auto-generated source. In C++ Builder, there are many wizards to generate basic forms for you. Want a simple database form? Use the database wizard, point it to the database file, and 5 minutes later you have a database form that works.
Since the wizards work by cutting a snipping code that someone at Borland wrote, Borland might not want that code redistributed. However, I suspect that the intent of the language was not this, but VCL.
Should this language be corrected? Heck yes. But I don't think Borland means to stop open source software from using C++ Builder or VCL.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Regardless of what other (lucid, thoughtful) postings have stated, here's an idea: distribute your source in a self-extracting executable archive. There ya go.
--- Borland C++
--- C++ Compiler
--- Borland Turbo C++ Suite
--- Borland C++ Builder
The license cited is for Borland C++ Builder -- a completely different product from Borland C++. This betrays either gross neglect, or deliberate inflammatory rhetoric. Anyone, anywhere could screw thenselves up using the wrong product in almost any task. Therefore getting the name right is the most basic act that anyone can be expected to do.
Besides, as has been noted elsewhere, Borland C++ Builder *generates* code for you. You can write and distribute the binary, or any source code you write -- but not source code that Borland writes.
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
So, does the C++ builder tool only make it's "own" version of C++ code? Has Borland modified it in such a way to make it difficult, or otherwise impossible to enforce such a liscense? What if I write my code in vi and then compile using their compiler may I then redistribute my IP?! Ugh, it amazes me at the utter audicity of Borland to suggest such a thing. Since source code is intellectual property Borland has no juristiction to make such a wild claim, and it would seem that they are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to development teams, CVS, and hell - how the product is even laid out.
Sounds like marketing didn't understand the product, or laws at all.
Yet another example why English is a HORRIBLE language for law.
Please, somebody cook up a decent language and grammar for law that isn't filled with inconsistencies.
Of course, Pascal bigots say the same thing about C...
Of course, what's good for natural languages isn't necessarily good for formal ones. I've been thinking for a while now that lawyers attempt to program society in the same way that programmers program computers.
I have been saying exactly this for years, but all my lawyer "friends" claim that I'm just being a geek (insert hammer-stuff-looks-like-nail metaphor).
I have always felt a FORMAL, non-English language should be developed for law.
This is ALREADY how it is.
Lawyers DO already spend 90% of their time learning how the "legal" language works. Non-lawyers ALREADY are not qualified to read and interpret written laws, hence the ubiquitious "IANAL" disclaimers.
And as far as "natural language translations" go, we have this function already as well in the form of the court system. This is exactly what judges do when they publish findings.
Borland used to be renowned for it's dead-tree manuals. Once they killed the Turbo C and went into the C Builder product lines, the dead tree manuals degraded into the present online help kludge. You have to give credit, Borland is going back to its roots as a really good compiler first, MS competitor second, but they still have a LONG way to go to gain back the credibility they lost in the late nineties.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
You're emphasizing the wrong part of the statement. All it's saying is that you can release only a binary with no requirement to release the code. It's saying you can release only an executable with no extra licensing or fees.
As stated above, Borland has no power over my creations.
They probably told the lawyers that they didn't want anyone to freely distribute their proprietary libraries. The lawyers writing the license probably thought that meant no free distribution of source code.
I know that this isn't a SOLUTION to the problem, but wouldn't a simple workaround be to load the .cpp files into a regular text editor, and re-save them? .cpp files are just ASCII anyway, right?
For that matter, if BC++Builder doesn't include any junk in the file, it would be pretty hard to prove that the code was created with the software in question. Might not be legal, but Borland would have a really hard time proving that their software was used instead of.. say, 'notepad.exe'
A little aside: I doubt Borland did this on purpose. There would be no benefit to them to do so. Sounds like a little liscensing mishap that someone happened to pick up.
I disagree with your assumptions. Slashdot may be a news and media site, but it isn't a normal one. It's not made by journalists - it's made by programmers. We the audience are the "fact-finding" journalists. And we crunch through many stories every day and sift the wheat from the chaff, fact from fiction. Maybe this model doesn't work for you, but I think it's a more accurate description of Slashdot than yours.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
The C++ Compiler v5.5 is not equal to C++ Builder 3
I have not read either licence, but I'm sure that they will differ, as the Compiler is freely available, but (in most cases) you still need to purchase the Builder.
I agree, however, that reading more than one paragraph of a long licence is required before posting a story like this.
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
Come on fellas, settle down. By the looks of it, this particular license applies to the distributed copy of Borland C++ contained in the magazine. This license would be FAR different than the one included in a retail box. They don't want anybody making any money off of this compiler - they're getting it for free, after all. Why they won't allow you to distribute source is a bit odd, but why don't you use a real compiler like GCC, anyawys? ;)
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
"a neato printed manual"
What are these printed manuals you speak of?
That sounds like a cool idea! Someone should try that!
Your un-interpreted code is not a program. The code you wrote is yours. The code Borland wrote, included in the compiled executable, is not.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
I've not used the free(beer) version, but any major development tool for windows comes with a bunch of proprietary libraries and objects.
Borland are quite nice, since they include the source for their own libraries. My guess is that a full reading of the contract (for those 100 lawyers) reveals the obvious:
a) You can distribute your own code
b) You can distribute the executable
c) You cannot (without explicit licence) redistribute the source of any additional libraries uses in yourt application.
So, if you use GPL-ed libraries, you are free to distribute the whole source. If you use any proprietary libraries, you can not distribute their source (without permission). That means that any other contributor to your application will need a separate licence for those libraries. Only fair.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
...or in the same way the posting on a Slashdot discussion board in no way gives Slashdot the right to control what happens to them (such as putting them in a book). Just a thought :o) Don't mod it down -- I love Slashdot, or I wouldn't be here!
Got Rhinos?
They probably meant "with or without source code", meaning that one does not have to release one's source. Source code copyright (and control of the source) remains with the author, regardless of which compiler he/she uses.
I seriously doubt this would stand up in court, though IANAL...
-Reeves
Sounds more like they're guaranteeing your right to distribute programs as executables only (no source) rather than infringing on your right to distribute programs with source included.
Duh.
Do this:
There you go... :)
--
This space left intentionally blank.
It isn't saying that you are forbidden to distribute source code to your programs, it is saying you are allowed to distribute binaries without source.
It can be read either way, and as such is poorly worded, but since you own the code you wrote, it only makes sense one way.
Besides, isn't ambiguity in a license legally supposed to be interpreted in favor of the licensee?
pornking
I suspect the problem is a lawyer who has been told to rewrite it to allow a certain scenario and has managed to muck up an existing right. It should say something like "in executable form with or without any source code".
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
Sigh,
/. readers if links to or the full text of these licences was posted along with the original post. If that was the case here this who discussion would have been a total non-issue. This was not even a 'misinterpetation' since the topic is clearly covered in the agreement in plain english.
I first read about this in the Borland newsgroups, and thought what a bunch of idiots, even in the tidbit posted in the quote at the start is says,
"You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software without additional license or fees, subject to all of the conditions in this License Agreement."
Now this actually says you can give stuff away, and there are further conditions, which of course
were totally ignored by almost everybody commenting here not to mention the original poster. So to read on in the Borland C Builder 5.0 (not the freebie the full blown package),
"All Inprise libraries, source code, Redistributables and other files remain Inprise's exclusive property. Regardless of any modifications that you make, you may not distribute any files (particularly Inprise source code and other non-executable files) except those that Inprise has
expressly designated as Redistributables. Nothing in the License Agreement permits you to derive the source code of files that Inprise has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you generate with an Inprise source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Inprise to be your code."
So not only is the code you make yours and freely distributable but ALSO the machine generated code as well. The full Borland C Builder package comes with quite a but of source that is owned by Borland/Inprise and they obviously don't want that to be given out.
I think that in future it would be very helpful to the
"You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own."
How much clearer can it get.
I'm sure if you upgrade to the latest $$$ version of C++ all such restrictions will be removed, it's an old marketing ploy - you couldn't use homemade mods with the shareware version of Quake, upgrade to Blah 98 & receive a neato printed manual etc.
Actually, this has been standard for a long time. If it is new, it's probably just reiterating what's been their policy all along (although I admit it does sound kinda fishy). I think since they started Kylix, they may have found themselves a little nervous about the GPL which says no closed library dependencies. Well, they rely heavily on something called the Visual Component Library which is a kick-ass little system involving what they call Borland Package Libraries which can be integrated/linked at design-time (RAD), compile-time (static link) and/or run-time (dynamic link). Anyway, these BPL's contain the VCL and these BPLs are closed. Basically, this says that those compiled, standard BPL's are theirs, not yours, so by using their tools, you agree to abide by their rules, even if it means no GPL. They're just trying to beat the GPL to the punch. (I won't comment on their tactics, just tellin' it like it is.) Anyway, I think this applies more to the VCL/RTL packages (REDISTRIBUTABLES) & source than it does to your program.
It breaks down like this:
Link to VCL at compile time: OK.
Link to VCL at run time: OK.
Use VCL at design time: OBVIOUSLY OK (that's how RAD works).
Distribute unmodified VCL for free (beer) with your program: OK.
Change VCL and link at compile-time: OK.
---
Distribute VCL source: NO.
Distribute RTL source: NO.
Distribute modified VCL (change VCL and/or RTL, and link at run-time): NO.
That's what this license says. There are certain tricks and exceptions that are allowed or that they don't really care about, but this is basically the rules. I'd guess what they're saying here is even if you release something under the GPL, you can't distribute the binaries to their source.
---
"Duane Dibbley?" -- Duane Dibbley
Why doesn't someone who has a copy of the software email Borland and ask them to clarify, rather than everyone randomly speculating and/or switching compilers? Do we even know if all versions of the compiler come with this licence, or just the one from the magazine?
It still seems like a strange restriction, but it shouldn't affect the production of free software as long as you write it yourself.
> I could show this to 100 lawyers and get this same reading.
Yeah, you could, but not if you showed them the whole thing:
"You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software"
"in executable form only" limits what you can reproduce and distribute, but then "programs which you create using the software" tells you what it's talking about, since "programs" is the direct object of the sentence, and "which you create using the software" is an adjective clause modifying programs (incidently, I have no legal training, but I did take English classes once a long time ago). You feed a compiler source code. It creates programs, and you can distribute them. It does mean that you can't distribute a disassembled copy of a program that you compiled with Borland C++, but it says nothing about the source YOU generate.
Read that again. That just guarantees you the right to distribute programs that you use THEIR compiling tools to create. It isn't saying you can ONLY distribute things in binary executable format, but that you are allowed to.
Why did someone post this as a story?
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
-Nathan Whitehead
Later in the license it says "The Software might include source code."
With regard to the people asking about automatically generated code: "Source code which you generate with an Inprise source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Inprise to be your code."
Duh.
The key phrase is "programs which you create using the software". The source code to my software is not created by the compiler. I create the source code, not the compiler. This license only talks about the stuff that the compiler creates.
So the question becomes, what does the compiler (and related tools) create? A bunch of things:
I think the point they're trying to say is that of all the things that the compiler, etc (aka "Software") generates, the executable is the only thing you're allowed to distribute. You can't distribute, for instance, the listing files that show what kind of assembly code the compiler has generated.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Go to Borland's site. Read what this thing does. When you use it C++ code is created. You do not write C++ code with this. I would imagine that this license applies to the code it generates. They are copyrighting their code generator. This is kinda similar to say MFC being copyrighted but giving permission to freely redistribute.
C++Builder has code in itself to do X. You want to do X in your program. It adds the code for X. Kinda like using VB adding a component but instead of just getting this visual dodad you get actual code. They are maintaining that you can redistribute this is binary form
So you can compile something in C++Builder and distribute the source. However developing it entirely in C++Builder is a no-no. Because it would use Borland's code in the final output of your project. If you released your source free and clear at that point you would be distributing Borland's source code.
Remember this is not just a compiler.
-cpd
The source referred to in the license restriction was distribution of the Borland supplied library source code - not the developer's own source. That would be an unusable license. We've always included the source to our supplied libraries and the restriction was only to protect those libraries - for they were licensed under a traditional software license. You can use any Borland C++ compiler including the command line free BCC or the new C++Builder 5 to create GPL licensed applications. If you link with non-GPL libraries, such as those included with the compilers, you would need to include a clause in your license as described on the FSF site for using Qt - a non-GPL library. -Michael Inprise/Borland
UK PC magazines almost all carry CDROMs, and now DVD's, and full software turns up on these CDROMs all the time. Borland have been putting older versions of Delphi, C++Builder and other products on theses magazines for years. I have copies of Deplhi from version 1 to version 4.
This has always been a license restriction in the giveaway release of development software they put on the magazines. There is always an offer to obtain a full-development-rights license (and the rest of the retail box stuff) for a nominal sum (about 30 UKP).
This is not new. This is only restricted to coverdisk software. There is nothing unusual here. The software is being released for home use only. And gratis at that...
Pax,
White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
Borland C++ Builder 5.0 has the same text in its license, but below, under the title "GENERAL TERMS THAT APPLY TO COMPILED PROGRAMS AND REDISTRIBUTABLES" it reads:
All Inprise libraries, source code, Redistributables and other files remain Inprise's exclusive property. Regardless of any modifications that you make, you may not distribute any files (particularly Inprise source code and other non-executable files) except those that Inprise has expressly designated as Redistributables. Nothing in the License Agreement permits you to derive the source code of files that Inprise has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you generate with an Inprise source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Inprise to be your code.
So, if you can distribute source code from a third-party vendor, in case the latter doesn't oppose, you can sure distribute your own. What you can't do is redistribute what Borland gave to you, other than the "redistributables" that appear on their list.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Thus, the notion that the license implies that you can't use Borland C++ to compile a GPLed program is just silly. And if someone posted the story on that basis, this makes them irresponsible idiots.
What is, on the other hand, less clear, is what transformations C++ Builder can do on your code, and whether THAT could lead to Borland having the right to restrict what you do.
People may remember back to the days of Bison before version 1.24. From the Conditions for Using Bison:
In similar manner, if you use C++ Builder to generate code, as might be the case if you used the Drag'n'Drool interfacing to generate GUI code, it is plausible that Borland might have something to say about what you do with the code that was generated by their code generator.
A responsible person would, before submitting this story, try to verify some such information, rather than generating an irresponsible drive-by flaming of Borland. Of course, a responsible person would, before accepting the story for publishing, do some modicum of verification.
Few, of course, would accuse Slashdot of being a place for responsible people.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I believe you're interpreting the license incorrectly. It gives you the right to release binary-only executables. It doesn't say that you can't release source code. Borland's license can not affect what you do with what you've created. After all, you wrote your code for use with GCC, right? And running material you own through Borland's compiler in no way allows them to say what you can do with it, in the same way that running your food through a GE garbage disposal in no way gives GE the right to say what you can do with the remains!
Yet again Slashdot has posted a story querying the intentions and validity of a license from a commercial software developer without first asking, in this case Borland/Inprise, what it means. Could we please refrain from posting any stories like this until the external party has had a chance to make a comment which should be included in the story and make this a far more worthwhile exercise. As it is any comments will be rendered inapplicable when we hear from Borland (well virtually) so let's see some sense.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I recently downloaded a copy of the Borland C++ Compiler v5.5. It's free as in beer. The license contains the paragraph quoted above but if you read the whole thing, you find the following paragraph:
All Inprise libraries, source code, Redistributables and other files remain Inprise's exclusive property. Regardless of any modifications that you make, you may not distribute any files (particularly Inprise source code and other non-executable files) except those that Inprise has expressly designated as Redistributables. Nothing in the License Agreement permits you to derive the source code of files that Inprise has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code or byte code that is entirely your own. Source code which you generate with an Inprise source code generator, such as an Application Wizard, is considered by Inprise to be your code.
Talk about going off half cocked.