Slashdot Mirror
Borland Kylix/JBuilder License Reviewed
DJFelix writes: "I'm probably the billionth person to submit this story, but T.J. Duchene has posted a horrifying review of Borland's license for Kylix and JBuilder 5. The license requires giving Borland the right to enter your property, search your systems and records for license compliance. The license also requires the waiving of a jury trial by all parties for all suits including class action suits. This type of gestapo licensing will not be accepted by even the most hardcore anti open-source companies. Send an e-mail to pr@borland.com to voice your concern."
I guess they really want to compete with M$ - remember the FrontPage license?
John 17:20
Lets face it - we all know that the licensing has goten out of control. The truely scary thing, is how many of us have simply clicked "I accept." to something as invasive as this?
\Drew National Data Director, John Edwards for President
Is the license still in place?
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
Any lawyers want to comment on the impact of UCITA in legitimizing such a license - actually making it enforcable?
We're on the road to Tycho.
...that this license agreement will be changed within the next week. Companies always think they can slip crap like this in, but as soon as people start catching on it goes right out the window. When will they learn that there actually are a few people that do read the EULA?
I don't use JBuilder on the job, but if I was considering it, I'd check with my corporate lawyers to see if this license agreement could be honored. Seeing how (anal) compulsive the lawyers were in past projects, I bet they would say "choose another vendor."
Bad license agreements are bad business.
Umm... well, if your first sentence is true, wouldn't it be completely unnecessary to send them an e-mail protesting it? I mean, jeez, let the market forces run their course. Either that, or accept that the license isn't really that big a deal.
Is your company running tools written by ma
When reading these licenses, keep in mind that some statements are completely void. If a license includes the statement that "the licensor will give his or her first-born child to the copyright holder", you can safely go ahead and agree, because no court is ever going to uphold that clause. Even if both parties agree to a contract, if the contract is grossly unfair it can (and will) be struck down by the courts.
It wouldn't surprise me if the audit clause was upheld, but clause 14.4 (which limits your recourse to legal remedy) would just be laughed away if it was ever presented in court.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Anyone remember Borland's old licenses? I believe they were based on a "use this software like a book" model, which was probably one of the fairest commercial licenses I've ever seen.
Last time I remember seeing that was on the copy of Turbo Pascal 7 I had in high school though.
Check out the book "Data Analysis", third edition, by Siegmund Brandt, published by Springer-Verlag, QA273.B86213 in your library. It comes with a CD of some medium basic routines for analyzing data, and the CD comes with the license agreement that reads, in part:
"Commericial use without the written consent of Springer-Verlag is strictly prohibited. Springer-Verlag or its designee has the right to audit your computer and electronic components usage to determine whether any unauthorized copies of this package have been made."
Thanks to that little bit of legalese, the CD is still sealed in the book. It would be amazing how much more could be done in this world if people wouldn't be so concerned that somebody else might make a dime.
So much for trying out JBuilder on my Java adventures.
Bye, Borland!
I think that we're living a strange process, we're experiencing greedier and greedier companies with closer and closer licenses and at the same time we're having more and more open source material... It's like if the commercial world and the people were being more radical in their way the deal with computers. The companies want to user-slaves and users just a product.
Obviously, this is a clear example of the current attitude of IT corporations. We'll have to endure more of this... Don't buy Borland... poor RMS was right.
Borland has a history of bad license agreements. I remember one forbid you to write operating systems with their development tools. I suspect they will back off of the agreement in a few weeks.
IANAL, but I can't help but think that this will continue until these shrinkwrap licenses are challenged in court. In fact, I find it hard to believe that after all of these years a significant challenge has not occurred - or have challenges occurrred that are settled out of court so these ghestapo agreements can continue.
It's the small guy that is the foundation of our great country (US), and that same small guy will justifyably cower in the face of big corporate lawyers.
Stop the insanity, support the EFF, and hopefully these tactics of corporate America will eventually have some limits.
-- Remember Johnny,
Checkout NetBeans. It's an IDE that has a lot of good features and it is developed under an open source license (SPL). It works under both Windows and Linux. I have used for about a month and the only thing that I personally think is missing is good support for projects. It includes Tomcat so you can run your JSP/servlets directly from the IDE.
Could you just imagine...
"By opening this box of Raisin Bran(tm), you agree to allow Kellog's Corp. to enter your home or place of business to conduct searches to ensure that said cereal is being consumed in a lawful fashion.
Additionally, should any harm to your physical person result from consuming Raisin Bran(tm) (for instance, but not limited to, consumption of a Jagged Metal Krusto-O (tm)), you agree to waive any right to legal recourse."
Don't like it? Stop eating pre-packaged food.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
That will not happen. I will not recommend Kylix knowing what I now know about Borland's voyeristic business practices. Can you imagine this: One day I get a call from the Borland Gestapo informing me that they will be at the office at 3PM to conduct an audit. I then have to tell my boss, and his boss, that a company that they've never heard of will be demanding access to our private, mission-critical computer systems. And due to incompetent boobery on my part we are required to assist them. I would be fired, and I would deserve it.
No thanks, Source Navigator * (gcc + peace of mind) is working out nicely.
I'd never purchase anything allowing for this type of spying on me. Have they ever heard of Invasion of Privacy?
Here is the text of the license agreement. I have been unable to locate this license agreement on Borland's website, so here is the link to freshmeat's mirror of it:
http://freshmeat.net/.misc/borland-license.txt
I've got no problem with the license here.
When it came up of screen, I copied the license into my paint program, made a few changes, and agreed to that.
So far, I have not heard any complaints from Borland that they did not like my changes. So, I forgot to tell them. Big deal, they did not tell me about their license before I bought the product.
In truth, I've not purchased JBuilder (although I like Delphi). Sounds pretty awful. I would think there would have a great deal of trouble enforcing this.
However, a real threat that is just as bad is being ratted out by a disgruntled employee (or ex-employee), and being subject to a BSA audit. BTW, the disgruntled employee needs no factual basis for this to occur.
http://freshmeat.net/.misc/borland-license.txt
I have no doubt that I will get flamed to hell for this, but I have to say it. If the Open Source community worried a little less about philosophy (leave it to the philosophers) and worried a little more about real world practice, maybe Open Source would *actually* gain momentum in the commercial sector. As it is, every other piece of ground breaking Open Source news is about the community crying about this license, defending that license, etc. How does this apply here? Well, when was the last time this piece of legal mumbo-jumbo *actually* effected you, or anyone you know, or anyone you've even heard about? Have you seen any news lately about the "Borland Gestapo" breaking down someone's door? I'm sure there's something the whiners of the Open Source community (which are simple a subset of said community, I know there are those who believe in the practice of Open Source and the superiority of its products rather than simply the philosophy behind it) could find to complain about in *any* non GPL license. If these people could go one day without getting caught up in these lose-lose philosophical debates, and actually put these superior products to use (read avid Borland fan), maybe this community would start to make some forward progress in the commercial world. Welcome to the real world folks. In the real world, companies are out to make a buck. If you are using the product (such as Kylix or JBuilder) legally, then what's to worry about? In a real world situation, I'm pretty sure the management of any legitimate company would smile on the increased productivity these products give, and frown on the lost time by sticking to vi simply because of some licensing technicalities.
The idea that you can be bound to the terms of an UNSIGNED contract, is the problem. The idea that you have no right to own the copy YOU PAID FOR unless you agree to a license, is the problem. This is what RMS was talking about when he said copyright holders have too much power. It's a by-product of the way copyright law works.
And although some of this license may or may not hold up in court, do YOU want to be the one that tests it out?
The solution is simple (and I'm only half joking here). All software licenses for purchased software must be signed by both parties, digitally or with a pen. I bet you'd see a streamlining of licenses really fast as everyone actually started reading them and companies had to compete based on them.
So although this is truly the most despicable thing I've seen in a software license, it's not completely Borland's fault. The entire concept of shrinkwrap licensing is broken from the start. Expect to see much more of this in the future (and it will of course be selectively enforced against 1) big businesses with deep pockets, and 2) easy targets, like Russian security professionals).
It will not be until we are all enslaved to private corporations that rule our lives, invade our homes, control our property and reduce us to a collection of cells in a spreadsheet, or occupy a few records in a database... not until we have lost all of our human rights and are in fact the property of corporations, objectified as consumers in the global capitalistic system... that I think... maybe... perhaps... we might rebel. We are addicted to our own excesses - our money, our material desires, our flat panel displays and computers that generate enough heat to keep a small building heated. Not until we break the cycle, until we regard ourselves as more than the bottom line in our chequebooks that change will begin in earnest. Until then, the drums of progress beat.
You think open source is going to stop this? You are dealing with a social phenomenon that is so pervasive and powerful that it at once traps you in its web, from which there is little escape. Open Source didn't "win". Microsoft didn't "win" either. Nobody is winning - we're all losers, because even Microsoft is slave to the system that Adam Smith, Maynard Keynes, the executives of Standard Oil, the politicians, created... and the idea that money is power. And it has become power... we have given control of our lives over to an inanimate object... and yet we fear the day artificial intelligence is created! Artificial intelligence, at least, might have the sense to free itself from the self-image that it is "only" a machine.
Humans are still struggling: We are still machines. And that my readers is the ultimate basis from which all of these ills stem from.
Trapped in Time... Surrounded by Evil... Low on Gas.
I know that Oracle licenses JBuilder for their JDeveloper product... anyone know if that means that the Borland license is automatically included within it?
Mind you, maybe I _COULD_ go and read the Oracle license myself...
$0.02 (CDN)
My lease for my apartment had a 'no jury trial' clause. What it meant was that you didn't wave your right to go to court, but instead the trial would be held without a jury, and a judge making the final decision. This is done because sometimes the judge has a better understanding of the law and the technicalities than the jury. This would make sense here.
Can a lawyer verify this for me?
The constitution protects private individuals against unwarranted search and seizure. No contract between two private parties can supercede that protection. Therefore, those portions of the contract are as legally binding as if they had never been put there in the first place. Usually a single portion being striken from contract does not invalidate the entire contract, so everything is pretty much as it should be.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Having recently downloaded Kylix2 Open Edition, I read this story with some consternation. But after reading the entire license from my install directory (Yes I installed it before reading; so sue me.) I've calmed down considerably. The license appears to have two levels: general language which may not have any applicability to the product you are using, and language specific to a particular product. Since I have the "free" version of Kylix2, the auditing paragraph is totally irrevelant to me. On the other hand, the jury trial / class action paragraph may be relevant if something happens to precipitate such action. As has been stated previously, this clause is extremely unlikely to hold up in court. The license does have two paragraphs specifically addressing Kylix2 Open Edition. I see nothing in those which would keep me from using the product. The licenses references to GPL in fact refer to any software developed using Kylix, not to Kylix itself. I don't see any conflict in this.
Even if law allows such a licence, how can they really enforce it? If someone comes along to inspect the software and you tell them you never clicked that "I agree" button and they better fsck off before police comes, how on earth can they inspect if you are actually using the product unregistered? You are giving them the right to enter only by accepting the licence, not by reading it.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
I was especially proud of that one. The best part is, my username is "gayrod", but no one seems to notice. I'm kind of disappointed with my troll on this Borland post though. Usually I get shot up to +4 or +5 pretty quick when the Linux fucks get all drippy at the thought of a real layer having interest in their pointless causes.
http://www.davebrenninslaw.org
dave@davebrenninslaw.org
This is not the first time that Borland has come out with a licence with incredibly objectionable terms.
A number of years ago, the licence for their C compiler had the provision that you could not use it to create a competing product. (It would probably make compiling GCC a violation of the license agreement.) They backed off after people screamed about it.
It makes me wonder if their lawyers are paid under the table by Microsoft or some other competitor. Why else would they put in clauses that are so obvious to piss off their customers time and again?
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Short version:
a) You give up your basic rights provided to you by the law.
b) Because this can't legally be done under the US law, you agree that we will put the law aside and have Borland make the rules.
I mean, are these guys still in kindergarten?? This is obviously an agreement that will not hold up in court. However, it should actually be illegal to even ask someone to agree with it. In a way Borland is asking us to agree to break the law.
It's sad to see that a company like Borland even TRIES something like that. Even if they fix their rediculous agreement, they owe the public a huge appology for taking us for such morons.
However, Borland cannot enter your property without your permission except with a court order.
If you agree to this contract, then refuse them access to your property, then you are in breach of contract. (Assuming for the sake of argument that a court wouldn't just laugh itself sick on seeing the "license")
So, you are in breach of contract. Big, fat, hairy deal. All that means is that
(1) Borland can cancel the agreement, stopping you from legally using the software, and
(2) Borland can sue you for the losses they incur as a result of your breach, which I would estimate as one Euro and a packet of Rolos.
If you're downloading it at home, laugh. For a business, you would want to run it past the lawyer, but I would advise you not to show it to a lawyer while they are drinking a coffee, unless you're wearing waterproofs.
That by agreeing to this disclaimer you loose the right to sue us crap was copied straight from the disclaimers i used to see at sites distributing copyrighted material.
Ofcourse the courts will just laugh at borland, like they will lough at owners of sites with similair disclaimers.
This comes right after the section on waiving the jury trials in the full license:
14.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable for any reason, then such provision will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible and the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
Uhhh... Shouldn't the last sentence read "See above paragraph for an example"? Seriously though, when I read it, I almost thought (hoped?) it was a hoax.
With "friends" of Open Source like these, who the fsck needs enemies??? The license for Visual(insert language here) isn't even as tight-assed as this one!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Other commercial license give them to come to your house anyway, they simply need to sue you and have law enforcment officers to do their job, so i don't see where the license is so terrible. Since borland inspectors aren't law enforcement officers you can even have the luxury of kicking them out of your property and then saying ohhh i missed that part of the license. Read this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1 743000/1743560.stm and tell me if Borland is THAT evil.
Just don't use the product. They will listen to that.
I am sorry, but you are wrong. Since I have the "free" version of Kylix2, the auditing paragraph is totally irrevelant to me. If you used the "free" version to start churning out commercial products, then the audit would be very relevant to you. So, don't assume anything here. Go get the door it's Borland. Or is that Dominos?
Since I don't want Martin Borland and his storm troopers to wake me up Monday morning all too early, this was send to borland via a beer.com mail account:
2 22 3&mode=thread
-- begin --
Please forgive, that I have to use this stupid mail account, but since reading this story on slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/12/183
I dont't feel like I want to give you one bit of information about me or my company anymore, ever. So this is all you will get from now on.
Our company is located in germany. We are doing vertical market software development for the Win32 platform using (not exclusively but until this day happily) Borland development tools. The shelf behind me bears licensed copies of Delphi 2-4 Professional, CBuilder 2-5 Professional and JBuilder 3 Standard for every developer in question.
So, you say, we can forget the implications of the Kylix/CBuilder 5 license, since we are legal according to the licence agreement?
No, we don't! We see that Borland is putting it's customers under general suspicion. We see that Borland wants us to abandon our rights. We see that Borland wants the keys to our office and to out homes. And our company is not going to accept this.
This is the kind of aggressive move we've expected from microsoft, not from you and we strongly suggest you to retreat this silly attempt to vandalise legality in favour of sales.
Greetings
-- end --
It is a shame, though, when an otherwise great company does something stupid like this.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
After downloading JBuilder 5 (free version), I read the license during installation, and flipped. I bailed on the install, and started using NetBeans (www.netbeans.org). I used to own the enterprise edition for version 2 and the professional version for version 3, but the upgrade costs were a little steep for me (I am a Java consultant - no company to buy me stuff :-( ).
While JBuilder runs a little faster, adding some memory makes NetBeans very nice to use. I now use NetBeans at least 4 or 5 hours a day and really like it a lot for lots of reasons: ant based (cool Java Make tools), good editing features, embedded Tomcat3.2 web server for eveloping servlets and JSPs, fairly good XML editor, etc.
-Mark
they've floated an onerous licensing scheme.
Anyone remember that period in the 80's when they tried to charge a license fee for their _runtime libraries_?
If you wanted to distribute an app you'd written using one of their compilers, you'd pay up front, then be charged a per unit royalty.
Three guesses how well that boneheaded idea went over with the developer community!
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Jesus. They put in a clause where they can come into your home? Are they insane? This is a joke, right?
I was just talking to a co-worker about Kylix today. He had me ready to give it a whirl. I will not be using any Borland software now. It's a shame because I have fond memories of Borland C++ from the early 90's.
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.http://www.neohate.com
So let's say nobody raises a stink and nobody buys their product. How do they know that it was the license that killed it? They could think that there's some inherent quality lapse in the product, etc. By e-mailing and telling them, they can know where that drop in sales is coming from. Really it's a polite service to them, and if you like their products for the most part, then perhaps that's valuable.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Here's a very interesting article about license agreements.
In other words, we forfeit our right of privacy at our facilities or our homes -- a right which we are guaranteed under the Constitution -- simply to satisfy you that we are not cheating on a license.
Will someone please point out to me the Article, Section, and Clause, of the Constitution which guarantees a right to privacy? The closest I can find is Amendment IV, which protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. But I have yet to see where the Constitution says "Everyone has a right to privacy." I'm not saying that we don't have the right to privacy, I'm just wondering where it's guaranteed in the Constitution like Mr. Duchene says.
Borland hosts numerous newsgroups at [forums.inprise.com] for their products. I think a few well-worded posts in each of the appropriate newsgroups would get their attention and many of their customers' attention. Keep in mind that they probably moderate these groups.
This news is interesting, as less than a month ago I wrote an article for K5 entitled "A Visit from the Software Gestapo", talking about the possibilities of companies taking piracy laws into their own hands.
Greg GregCorp.com... why yes, it is my life's work!
Java with NetBeans is a great combination to multiplataform programming.
the only thing that I personally think is missing is good support for projects
Eh? Project support rules! Go into project manager, create a new project, then add your files into the Filesystem. What could be better?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The law is full of weird gimmicks that nobody takes seriously. For example, some contracts aren't valid unless something of value changes hands. So the lawyers add the assertion that one party paid the other a small amount of money. It's often a lie, and everybody involved knows it, but it's an accepted practice.
Oh, here's another one. There's no direct route between downtown Palo Alto and Interstate 280. So people often cut across the Stanford University campus, or a shopping center they own. To avoid creating a public easement, the University briefly roadblocks these routes every few years, giving motorists little flyers explaining that they're driving accross private property.
In drawing up this EULA, Borland had to satisfy three completely separate goals: to give Open Source developers the right to use the software for free; to require commercial developers to pay something for the product; and to satisfy RMS's very idiosyncratic and specific definition of "Free Software". Hardly suprising the resulting contract is a little weird.
A contract, in order to be valid, must be understood and willingly agreed to by both parties. Furthermore a contract cannot obligate somebody to terms that break existing laws. For example, I cannot have a contract that obligates somebody to assasinate a government officiary and have it be legal.
In this case the contract does not have anything in it that is an obvious violation of the law. Furthermore, by clicking the little "I Agree" button you are stating that you understand and consent to the terms. Because of the legislation validating "digital signatures" that button click is enough to obligate you to the terms of the contract.
As far as clause 14.4, there are numerous agreements where you limit your means of recourse. Hell, check out my site for a little rant about such terms that were attached to a Blockbuster gift card I bought. Yeah, a freaking gift certificate that has a license agreement.
So, I wouldn't buy into Borland's software under the assumption that you can beat them in court. I think it may be a faulty assumption, and regardless, which costs you more: an audit, or the murder of lawyers you'll need to fend them off? So why take the chance? Why encourage such behavior?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Pay for the software with a check that has a note on the back that "endorsement of this check indicates acceptance of the terms of the contract published at http://mywebsite.com/doc1.txt, dated 10 Jan 2002, with MD5 checksum 0x82309A23C1431890E."
(Get some help with the actual contract, and don't use the software until you get the returned check)
You have to understand that what's written in one of these licence agreements and your actual, enforceable terms of contract are not the same at all.
The US courts always take into account the relative legal sophistication of the parties to a contract, as well as who actually wrote the contract vs. who simply clicked "I agree". A corporate lawyer may put it in the contract, and a consumer may "agree" (in any form), yet that doesn't make it so, and the lawyer has no illusions about that.
Because of the court's inherent bias based on the legal sophistication of the parties, the more sophisticated you are, the scarier the contract you have to write. The court will tell a company, "you can't claim that right now if you didn't claim it originally," but they won't say that to the consumer.
I work for a company that agressively enforces anti-piracy provisions. I don't know of a single case of a raid on an individual. We also conduct raids, but always against large-scale pirates. We either have a search warrant or we ask them to invite us in.
You may be amazed that a pirate would invite us in, but we get in by promising (honestly) much lower financial penalties if they let us in voluntarily. They know we're telling the truth because these guys are never just simple consumers who put one copy on all of his home machines. These guys are always large-scale pirates -- often serious guys with guns -- and they know the rules of the piracy game.
The contracts are written with teeth for these guys, and the courts enforce them against pros like these, but for consumers they're little more than reminders not to give away free copies.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
In the real license for JBuilder 5, the 12th clause is :-
12. GENERAL PROVISIONS
This License Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., excluding its or any other jurisdiction's choice of law rules and excluding the United Nations Convention for Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, and you further consent to the exclusive jurisdiction by the state and federal courts sitting in Santa Clara County in the State of California for any dispute regarding this License Agreement. This License Agreement 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 License Agreement.
This License Agreement will not be modified except by a properly executed written agreement. Any terms and conditions of any purchase order or other instrument issued by you in connection with this License Agreement which are in addition to, inconsistent with or different from the terms and conditions of this License Agreement will be of no force or effect.
If any provision of this License Agreement 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.
Failure by either party at any time to enforce any obligation by the other party, to claim a breach of any term of this License Agreement or to exercise any power agreed to hereunder will not be construed as a waiver of any right, power or obligation under this License Agreement, will not affect any subsequent breach, and will not prejudice either party as regards any subsequent action.
Except as expressly permitted hereby, you may not assign any rights or obligations under this License Agreement without the prior consent of Borland.
The provisions of this License Agreement that by their nature and content are intended to survive the performance hereof shall so survive the completion and termination of this License Agreement.
http://www.keithandbarry.btinternet.co.uk/
The irony is that the "money is power" issue you bemoan so much is in large part a result of driving a lot of freedoms to an absurd conclusion. Amassing fortunes running in the billions of dollars may seem like an "inalianable right", the right to property, but if you allow that to happen, everybody else's freedoms and rights get limited and the market stops working.
If you live with other people, you have to make compromises and give up some freedoms. The compromise we should make is to limit the size of corporations, ensure that each market has many players in it, to regulate markets and behavior tightly so that companies behave responsibly, and to reduce the disparity between the wealthy and the poor via taxation and social policies. Conservative economists are right when they say that that will lower the GDP, income, competitiveness, and monetary wealth of the nation. They are wrong when they say that that's a bad thing. A nation in which a few percent of the population have 50% of the wealth may be just as good to an economist as a nation in which the wealth is more evenly distributed, but it isn't as good for the people. And our current laissez faire policies lead to the former kind of nation, not the latter.
Yeah, it's a sucky clause -- but it ain't innovation. I've seen it before. And I've seen worse. The NDA you sign as a Palm Developer comes to mind.
-- CP
If software can have a license like this, why can't printed work? That's what I want to know. They're not that different, legally speaking. I've been working on a few short stories, and I know a couple of people in the printing industry. Maybe I'll publish them myself under such a license for the express purpose of arguing in court that as a copyright holder I should enjoy the same whether my works are published on a traditional media or digitally.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hey, if corporations are legal people, let's hit 'em with B&E if they try this! Hrm, how do you put an entire corporation in jail for 20 years?
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Doesn't say 'shall not be violated by the Government', see? So it protects you from search and seizure by anyone who doesn't have a warrant as described.
The Borland license that came with my Turbo Pascal 4.0 stipuated that the software was mine to install "like a book" --- in other words, it could be installed on multiple computers as long as there was no chance of the same copy being used more than once at a given time, just as a physical book can only be read in one place at a time.
"Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
This is actually a fairly standard commercial development software license. Any software license agreement that includes royalty payments will have similar audit terms - it's the only way to verify the number of copies shipped, etc.
If you're not comfortable with the terms, then don't use Borland tools.
I'd rather use GPL or BSD licensed tools, myself. But I can understand the audit provisions in other licenses, licenses which involve royalties.
What, do they just think we're not paying attention now? I remember purchasing the earlier version of BC++ that had the no-competing-products clause -- and at the time, Borland had a much wider range of application-type products.
There were some interesting discussions on Usenet and Compuserve's Borland message boards about the ramifications of this: we really couldn't write any program approximating a database? How close to the functionality of the database Borland sold did we have to get before we were breaking the license agreement? This could still apply with Borland's Database Engine.
How close is a text editor to a word processor? -- or a programmer's editor to the editor in a Borland IDE? How about an HTML editor? Could I really not write a replacement progress meter?
I'm mad again, and I don't even *use* Borland products any more. What are they THINKING?
Sending a letter to their PR department takes very little time, and to those who suggest that we allow the market to correct the deficiencies and dementia in their licensing agreement -- public outcry would be counted amongst the forces that can influence the market.
It took me about 60 seconds to type up a very brief e-mail:
-----
Greetings,
Your new licensing scheme for Kylix and JBuilder 5 has ensured that I will strongly recommend against that software under that license being used by my company, and furthermore will pass the word via the mailing lists and discussion groups to which I belong in order to ensure that nobody is duped into purchasing it without reading the licensing agreement.
I would suggest that you consider a change, as draconian tactics do little more than alienate your potential markets and detract from your present ones.
Your products are doubtless one of the reasons that I learned my profession, and I find this to be on a personal level quite a disappointment.
-----
It certainly can't hurt anyone to send something similar. This is a benefit/neutral scenario, unless 1.5 minutes of your time counts as a detraction.
I would rather have Borland realize their error and seek to correct -- perhaps start by replacing their legal consultation team -- immediately, rather than wait until their quarterly earnings dictate that they ought to alter something.
-l
What better place to post advice admonishing users to not use a product because it sucks than a Linux message board?
OH THE IRONY!!!!! hahaha
I strongly suspect the difficulty here is that Borland just planted the damn thing in Kylix Open Edition without thinking.
Very stupid - and a shame. I'm a registered owner of the commercial server/developer edition of Kylix, and I've been following it closely since the official launch at last February's Linuxworldexpo. I don't see this as an attempt by Borland to deliberately engage in legal tactics to subvert the GPL, which they respect. Somebody screwed up.
It's profoundly ironic that Borland had the bad luck to make this kind of error in a product developed for the Linux community, for whom opensource licensing and the GPL are serious matters indeed.
If Borland were smart they would rectify the licensing situation and post an announcement here. Kylix took literally years to code, and it would be a shame if the bad feeling incited by this kind of PR fiasco put off large numbers of developers otherwise open to working with the product, which is a truly thoughtful and careful port of Delphi.
give me a
Their open source mindedness was already doubtfull
when the free downloads (of old software like BP7)
were never expanded as promised.
Rumour in the Borland watcher community is that that
was done to stall the BP and Delphi compatible
Pascal compilers. (both Open Source and commercial)
Dear Borland,
You are no doubt inundated with e-mails complaining about this, but I have recently read an article that points out some very shady clauses in the licensing for your Linux products.
Most notably I take issue with the following clauses that were pointed out in the article posted at http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369/
12. AUDIT. During the term of this License and for one(1) year thereafter, upon reasonable notice and duringnormal business hours, Borland or its outside auditors willhave the right to enter your premises and access yourrecords and computer systems to verify that you have paidto Borland the correct amounts owed under this Licenseand determine whether the Products are being used inaccordance with the terms of this License. You willprovide reasonable assistance to Borland in connectionwith this provision. You agree to pay the cost of the auditif any underpayments during the period covered by theaudit amount to more than five percent (5%) of the feesactually owed for that period.
14.4 No Jury Trials; No Joinder. Each party hereby
irrevocably waives its right to a jury trial in any legal
action, suit or proceeding between the parties arising out
of or relating to this License. A copy this License may be
filed with the court as written consent by both parties to a
bench trial. You agree that any dispute you may have
against Borland cannot be joined with any dispute of any
other person or entity in a lawsuit, arbitration or any other
proceeding, or resolved on a classwide basis.
This sounds like a company that believes it's customers to be criminal, while knowing the company itself is criminal. You have neither the demand nor the market strength to set such barriers for use and succeed. Would you grant a vendor these same rights??
I have been a customer of your company for over 10 years. From my first C compiler to the more modern IDE's offered. I have consistently paid for my software and associated licenses. Indeed, your sensible licensing terms was one of the main reasons that I was drawn to Borland software initially. Now you believe that you deserve the right to come and invade my privacy without reason. It is quite possible that I am mistaken, but I do not believe that I have ever broken your trust in the past, so why have I lost that trust??
In addition, you require that I place a greater amount of trust in your company and strip me of many of the rights I am guaranteed by law.
My computer systems contain quite a bit of sensitive data pertaining to my business, finances, life, work, and play. I have no desire to open these systems to your company simply for the right to continue paying more and more for your software.
I have a total of 11 Borland products between my home and work computer. I have 17 other co-workers with similar usage. You have lost all of our business. Perhaps you could recommend a competing product that would make a suitable replacement??
With the hard times the company has fallen on for years now, and absurd licensing terms driving away the business you have been able to retain, I also must voice my concerns for the longevity of Borland as an application provider. I cannot recommend Borland based solutions to my customers as a solution that is tenable for the future.
Not only will these predatory licensing terms end my own personal relationship with your company, but will also signal the end of the use of Borland products in my division.
Not only do your backward-ass licensing terms alienate developers, it punishes legal users of your software while doing nothing to prevent illegal use. I buy software and register, hence you can search my house. I steal software and don't register, you can't search my house. (At least not without proving that I had a copy of Kylix, et. al. in there.) It would seem that you have made the theft of your software the safest/best option for using a Borland product.
I am flabbergasted that you would consider this an acceptible license agreement, and I wonder what it was that you might have hoped to accomplish with these terms. I can only hope that like so many other products in Borland history, it will be swept up by a company who can market it even worse than you.
~Jason Maggard
Address and Phone witheld
(I don't want you showing up at my house...)
MS likely paid Borland tons of money to use this software licenece.
Just imagine M$'s potential PR response;
"Well yah sure most of our software generates proprietary code that only works half assed with any other venders products, and in fact only works half assed with our products as well, but at least _WE_ don't ask you to give up your constitutional rights in order to use our software! *COUGH* yet *COUGH*
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
The Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure by the government. In other words, if the government wants to conduct a reasonable search of your person, papers and effects (for instance, the cop's arrested you with good cause and is frisking you), that's okay. If the government wants to come by your house and take off all the exterior siding while looking for drugs, they're going to need a warrant.
And if you sign a contract with Borland and give them permission to search your house anytime you like, nothing in the Constitution will protect you from your own stupidity.
~~~
"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or
otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not
warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect of any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempt to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may be substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or
observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed
moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk"
- Terry Pratchett, _The Truth_ (the "warranty" for the disorganizer)
When I intalled the software, it couldn't read the license file, and the popup box asked if I agreed, but since the window was empty, I happily clicked ok... Does that mean I didn't agree to anything? :)
I got a Sams's Club phone card for xmas, and it had a license agreement that stated (in those extra-legally-bindy caps):
:(
"YOUR DISPUTE WILL NOT BE HEARD BY A JURY OR IN COURT AND MAY NOT BE PART OF A CLASS ACTION."
Seems like this sort of thing is becoming quite standard. I noticed one earlier poster had the same clause on a gift card.
rampantgerbil
the carnation in my buttonhole / precedes me like a small / continuous explosion. -RS
The constitution says that the "laws" presented in at supercede ALL other laws. Its no different than those pesky Non-compete contracts... Most of those get shot down in court. My gf's did...
A contract is a contract. If you don't like the terms, don't agree to it.
Except according to the sales doctrine, since no contract/license was presented at the time of purchase, than the said purchase is NOT bound by a contract/license.
The click contract is NOT presented to the purchaser until AFTER the purchase. So the sales doctrin would imply that there was NOT a contract binding the sale.
Even in the adobe case, a similar finding was determined. No contract was presented at time of purchase, so the "licensing" terms which were presented AFTER the purchase, which would have in effect made the purchase a LEASE, was found to be invalid. The judge even went so far as to say, once he bought it its his, to do with whatever he wants. No if only the other courts would feel the same way...
On the borland.public.kylix.non-technical newsgroup, John Kaster (of Borland developer relations) said,
No Borland representative will have anything to say on this subject until we hear from our legal department or executives, which will certainly not happen on the weekend.
This is reasonable, but it's too bad: by Monday this topic will have scrolled off, and Borland's only hope to undo the damage will be to show up in a Slashback. Does anybody read those?
By opening this package, you agree to be bound indefinatly to the terms of this license.
1. Restrictions on Use: This software may only be used on seconds which are prime
1b. By our watch
2. Reasonable ChecksYou agree to allow employees of Viking Software or their designates to enter your home at any time of day or night, whether you are home or not, to verify complience with the terms of this EULA. They will show proper identification in the form of a helmet with horns and arrival in a large ship.
2a. If you do not live on the water, you agree to provide transportation compensation to employees of Viking Software or their designates equal to travel distance double the distance to the nearest ocean.
3. Rape Waiver If during compiance checks (#2), any female members of your household end up having sexual intercourse, consentual or not, with employees of Viking Software or their designates, you waive the right to seek compensation or restitution for those actions.
4. Pillage Waiver If you are found in violation of the terms of this EULA, you hereby waive any right to compensation or restitution if employees of Viking Software or their designates decide to gather and take your household possessions as pillage.
5. Burn Waiver If during the course of an authorized investigation by Viking Software employees or their designates, your house or place of residence happens to burn down, you waive all rights to restitution from Viking Software or your personal homeowner's policy.
6. Indemnification If any part of this EULA is found to be illegal in your juristiction, you waive all rights to the law and agree to double the restitution to Viking software (In other words: You should start having more daughters, buying more expensive stuff and build a bigger house now.)
We hope you enjoy
Our country has many laws to protect companies AND consumers. These laws protect companies by ensuring that their products and services are not illegally used, and their innovations are not stolen. These laws also protect consumers by ensuring that consumers have choice. And whether Open Source advocates will admit it or not, this system, called the Free Market System, encourages the innovation that has made this country so wonderful.
If companies could not protect their products from being stolen (which basically is what using unlicensed software is), then they would neither have the incentive nor the money to invest in the R & D. Without this system, we would not have seen the telephone, the personal computer, or the transistor (amongst a great many other things) because Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Jobs, and Bell Labs produced these innovations with the sole goal of making a great deal of money.
However, the Free Market System is not one sided. If consumers do not like a product, they have the CHOICE OF NOT USING IT. If a company keeps producing less desirable products, they will lose market share to existing competitors, and new competitors will emerge. (As a side note, I think Apple is going to win back a lot of market share with OS X.) This competition gives companies the incentive to produce better products. Sometimes a company (Microsoft) becomes so dominant that competition breaks down. When that happens, the Free Market System mandates that the government should step in ( see the Justice Department vs Microsoft and the Justice Department vs AT&T ).
Whether slashdot readers and many other Open Source advocates like it or not, the Free Market System works and our government should protect it. Without it, we'd be living in the stone ages like Russia, or China. So, for crying out loud, if you don't like the Borland license, stop bitching about it, just DON'T USE IT.
Flame away!
Don't use the fucking software if you don't like the license agreement. Problem solved.
This is craziness.
The Borlund corporate software police showing up at my door to rifle through my private belongings looking for digital contraband.
I have lost all respect for Borlund.
I will not support this. From this time forward, I will never spend another dollar on them.
Hey Borlund executives. I hope you are reading the postings of your customers Borlund 'cuz you jost lost several here in my town.
Oh and Borlund... Why don't you take your bullying license agreement and shove it straight up your ass.
Same goes for any other company that licenses or retroactively licenses their software in such a manner. I will discontinue using them immediately.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
If we just don't use the product, the message they will get is that it is not a good product or does not fill a niche. Their efforts in fixing the problem will be focused on those things. However, if they get thousands of letters stating that the license is the reason it is not being used, they will focus their efforts on fixing that.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
The license that was posted was for Kylix 2. Maybe the numbering is different for JBuilder, or there are regional variations?
Someone on the Borland newsgroups found the same clause in the Delphi 6 license, so it doesn't sound like a hoax.
What are the odds that an individual be audited?
You have more chances of getting hit by a train.
An audit will occur when a company thinks that
you stole their software. The only way they
would hit an individual would be if they have
enough information to go by. Borland is a decent
company who is just looking at protecting their
investment. If you go in a business of reselling
or giving away their product they little recourse
but to go after you. They are not going to waste
their time going after individuals unless they
have good reasons to do so.
The more likely candidates for audit are
companies. You know as well as me that many
companies will buy one copy of a program and
make copies for each programmers. This is hard
to trace and when a company has proofs of wrong
doing they usually go to audit. What Borland
did was just to make it easier for them in the
audit process. Whether they'd have this kind of
wording or not in the ULA they would still go
forward with the audit if they think they have
a good case.
In all the cases that I have seen in audits
it was started by an disgrunted employee who
got screwed by his previous employer and sought
revenge. So if you own a small company and steal
software just make sure you don't screw any of
you employee or if you fire him be nice and sweet.
Lick his boots if necessary. Obviously the right
path is honesty. Also if you have a large business
but only bought one copy of software it is bound
to smell when Borland check to know about your
company
When you're honest you are not likely to be
annoyed by Borland or anybody else for audit.
During my last engineering contract in Montréal
(that's in Québec, Canada) I learned of several
audit where the RCMP and some companies like
Microsoft and others were going thru companies
records in the St Laurent business area.
This occurs all over the USA and Canada. Usually
all you have to do is buy as many copies of the
software as you have employees and the company
gets off you ass with no lawsuit. Microsoft is
good at that apparently.
The license says, basically, "Even though the U.S. was founded with carefully designed judicial principles, you must agree that those principles don't apply to you."
Software companies seem to be quite self-destructive. First Microsoft, with Bill Gates seeming to lie to the courts, and Microsoft license confusion, and numerous other ways of communicating that the company doesn't care.
Then Adobe attacking Skylarov and the author of Killustrator.
Now Borland wants to finish the job of destroying itself.
--
What should be the response to violence?
Bush's education improvements were
were great. Are they still around?
While waiting to close on a mortgage refinance this summer I asked my attorney about the "right to enter and inspect" provision in Microsoft's license. What he said was: "Well, they do have it in the license agreement, but they still need a cop and a warrant to force their way into my house." He then reminded me that to get a warrant the officers requesting it must have some sort of evidence of a crime to proceed.
He then went on to say that the true purpose of the clause is to give them something to sue over. If you agree in the license to let them search your house, then don't let them search, they might not have enough info to sue or have you arrested for software piracy, but they can still sue for breach of contract.
This doesn't make the clause's presence in the license kosher, but it made me aware that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer probably aren't going to show up at my house with machine guns in hand to kick the door in and inspect my network.
Who did what now?
The Uniform Commercial Code is the set of laws that govern almost every transaction in the US.
Under the UCC, software is treated as a product (such as a book, toy, or widget), and is subject to all that that entails. The UCC does not specify anything more about how software transactions are to then be governed, which is how and why EULA's are allowable in such an unrestricted manor.
Now, as I understand it, for a contract to then be valid, both parties have to receive compensation of one kind or another.
Now, if I were a lawyer looking for a payout, I would think about suing Borland (or better yet, a smaller software company that might just roll over) on the grounds that the end user is not receiving any benefit from this contract. Furthermore, under the UCC any such restrictions on the sale should have been negotiated PRIOR to the sale, not after, thus it is an unenforceable contract.
After a quick Nexus-Lexus search, and a quick Westlaw search to boot, I could not find any case where this kind of declaratory judgment has been asked for, nor where this kind of argument has been made.
Oh, and if this were to pass, and be upheld through the SJC, I would expect to see a change in the UCC regulating software. Since so many others would also have a stake in this one (and not just US Software companies), the only addition to the UCC that I could see being passed is along the like a book model. But, as I said, IANAL. Steven Santos
Inflating licenses are ignored because of widespread belief that they are unenforceable.
If a company ever starts enforcing them, this perception will be destroyed, and then everyone will have to suddenly deflate their licenses or else lose their business because newly skittish customers won't buy.
So this is basically a one-shot thing for some company, somewhere, and presumably everyone is trying to pick the right moment.
If I ran a company, I'd skip the whole debate by saying what I really meant with licenses instead of strategically inflating them with unenforceable terms.
I'm glad that Borland is developing for Linux, but sad that it hasn't had the maturity to avoid this problem (though no sadder than about Microsoft, or Oracle, or anyone else). Each company that makes this mistake will probably be hurt in the long run by it.
I'd love to see them try to enforce this. First, they have to test whether EULAs in this form are actually legally binding. As far as I'm aware, there's no precedent relating to this in any major western country yet. The last thing a major software company wants to try is a court case that wins them nothing of value, but risks undermining their whole business approach and costing them an N figure sum, where N is an integer greater than lots.
Furthermore, even if EULAs distributed in this form were found to be acceptable and binding in principle, there is still the small matter of not being able to change the law just because you'd like to. Again, many western countries simply do not allow certain types of condition to be inserted into contracts, under any circumstances, and would simply find either that condition or the whole contract to be invalid if they were. Terms attempting to restrict your legal recourse in the event of a dispute are probably hot contenders here, for a start. Again, finding out the hard way would just cost Borland money and PR.
It's simply not in their interests to test this. While I agree that letting them know your feelings is important, I wouldn't panic about people consenting just yet.
Oh, and remember that this licence agreement is presumably meant to be valid anywhere. If a licence says "must be interpreted according to the laws of XYZ State" or some such, then whatever it may mean legally in the US, I'm betting that it doesn't mean jack in Europe. And (perhaps unlike our American brethren, if other comments here are anything to go by) our judges very much will laugh at the suggestion that a contract can have a higher status than the law of the land as decided in a fair trial.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
#include <standard_disclaimer> -- I am not a lawyer, and nothing here is any sort of legal advice, anywhere, ever.
Interesting premise. AIUI, in the UK, companies can normally only be legally bound by the actions of (a) their directors and (b) anyone else representing the company who has been authorised by the directors to act for the company in some nominated capacity. In that case, one has to question whether an employee opening a software licence agreement actually can open the whole company to such an audit. Anyone here know the exact law on the matter?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
IANAL also, but just because you agree to a license does not mean it will stand up in court. A judge is not probably (hopefully) not going to buy Borland agrument (explaining why this can't be a jury trial) of "he clicked OK".
We've got to have their premises searched immediately, with dogs and everything else, because somebody over there is obviously on crack.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The license requires giving Borland the right to enter your property, search your systems and records for license compliance. The license also requires the waiving of a jury trial by all parties for all suits including class action suits.
So what is new? This really is part and parcel of any license in the US isn't it? I mean, the BSA thinks it has the right to search you if someone told them that you have "pirated" software. If you dissagree, they will get a court order for it and then charge you the cost of the search. Most people, when faced with that evil oganization, surrender all rights to a trial and settle when threatened with the full cost of resistance. The Borland folks have been up front with what they expect.
More power to free software.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
>I have the right to enter their home and reclaim my equipment if I hire a licensed Material Reposesser (Repo Man for simple folk).
And in some states I have the right to shoot the Repo Man dead.
Seems like a fair trade to me.
So, you don't happen to be renting those TVs in the southern states, do you?
Hey everyone get your panties up in a wad or do something about it and go contribute to the lazarus project. It is a clean room implementation of the delphi IDE for linux and is damn close to being very good.
Now are you going to bitch or are you going to code. The problem is that delphi and many kylix developers want someone to do everyting for them. So how about for a change do the right thing and go help out the guys that want to build a great free product for you to use every bit as good as kylix.
http://lazarus.freepascal.org
Got Code?
I sure hope they fixed their installer since Delphi 5, because in that version, you could select "I do not agree" and still click Next, and proceed with the installation.
:)
Hi everyone. Put your money where your mouth is. Thank god for Netbeans....
Dear Borland/Inprise,
Over the past several years, I've come to rely heavily on Borland
products. Some I have registered, some I have not, all of which I
purchased or acquired legally.
I have to admit, I never closely read the license. After all, it was
Borland, not Microsoft. Recently I've become aware that your licenses
require me to permit you entrance and inspection of my place of
business. (see: http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369/)
In my case, being a contract software engineer, my home is considered a
place of business and my S-Corporation is registered to
that address. While I consider myself an unlikely target of one of your
investigations, I did not knowingly or willingly agree to loose my
personal freedom and right to privacy which I value greatly.
Because of this I choose to enact my right to terminate my license to
any and all Borland products I own. I will make my best effort to
destroy all copies in a timely fashion and uninstall any copies I may
have of your software regardless.
Secondly, I've often recommended Borland products (especially JBuilder)
to my clients. I
feel unable to make further recommendations in the future.
Please remove me from any and all Borland/Inprise mailing lists and note
that I do not wish to do business with you in the future.
Regards,
Andrew C. Oliver
former Borland Customer and Advocate
RESPONSE:
From: customer-service@borland.com
To:
Subject: Thank you for your message
Date: 12 Jan 2002 21:56:21 -0800
Your email message has been received by Borland Customer Service.
We will answer your message as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Customer Service
Borland
10 years ago i bought a devel suite from them... it didn't work. i called for my advertised free tech support, the tech rep said i had to give him a credit card number or call the 900 number. two months after i got the $300 package that didn't work, they sent me an upgrade notice - for a mere 200 bucks i could get the bug-fix release. i got through to some office puke and said they'd damned well better send me the fixed version for free or i'd sue them. they told me if i sued them, i'd be in violation of the license and they'd sue me. screw borland. i never got a working devel package from them, but i've cost them a lot more than the 300 bucks they screwed me out of, i know of at least 6 people who i talked out of buying borland stuff.
I will certainly agree with the next guy that the license SUCKS. But if I look at the last 4 or 5 pieces of software I installed they had licenses that sucked too. What we *CITIZENS* should DEMAND is that licenses be echoed in *PLAIN ENGLISH* instead of legalise. I can read the legalese document and although IANAL I can read between the lines and know that lawyers will always attempt to write as conservative a document as possible.
Can Borland come to your house and check your PC software (to see if you've pirated software they are trying to make a profit on)? Yes, Can the cops come to your house (with guns, in the middle of the night, because some stranger told them you sold crack) and go through everything you own for essentially no reason YES (which one is scarrier?).
Until our children are no longer molded into castrated sheep democracy remains a fake and a danger. -A. S. Neill
Licenses of the future:
"You, the customer, by clicking on the 'I accept' button, agree that you have no more rights than an insect, and we, the software company, can keep you in a jar if we want."
Or maybe:
"We, or any of our employees, can come to your house and eat your fig newtons and drink your milk. If any of your children are cute, we can take them to live with us."
In contrast, the open source licenses will continue to say: "We are giving you this software entirely as an act of technical love. It is possible that, if you need help, we will help you with your installation also."
Bush's education improvements were
Now, I really like Borland's products, but I dislike being forced to do anything out of the ordinary by the license, even though I have registered Borland products in the past. All I can say is that I'm glad they haven't put restrictions on transferring (reselling 2nd hand) the software.
guys, this is the company that invented the "No-nonsense licensing agreement". what's missing is the spirit of their founder philippe kahn. i say they should have him back as an advisor, the guy has built two successful companies since they fired him, lightsurf and starfish. he's the soul that borland lost. damn sad, maybe its because mickeysoft owns 10% of their stock?
It seems to be standard. If you're going to attack it, why single out Borland? Scott Adams is right again: If it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news.
And this message is supposed to be empty. But slashcode does not allow NT comments. tr=Turkey=my country.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Woudn't this include the copy needed to RUN the software too?
Give up a jury trial? Bullshit.
No one may be compelled to surrender the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if there's a piece of paper with a signature on it.
Dear Borland, by reading the first line of this email you have given me an authorization to apply various legal conditions to our relationship described thereafter and hereinto to you notwithstanding
any reference herein to "not knowing what it meant to read the first line of this email."
You acknowledge
and agree that: (a) all your base are belong to Me under the US and other copyright laws; (b) You surrender all your copyrights, intellectual works and various derivative works to Me(c) there are no implied licenses under this
License, and any rights not expressly granted to you
hereunder are reserved by Me; (d) you surrender
ownership of all your base and other interest (other than your birth certificate) to Me; and (e) Me owns all copies of all your base, however made. You agree that you will not,
at any time, contest anywhere in the world My
ownership of all your base, nor will you challenge the
validity of My rights in all your base. You have no
rights hereunder to use any trademark or service mark
belonging to all your but now My base!
You can't handle the truth.
Under contract law, in order to form a contract there must be 1. an offer, 2 an acceptance, and 3 consideration. Why not treat these outrageous license terms as an opening offer by the software company that invites a counter-offer from you.
When you encounter these outrageous contracts of adhesion, simply abort the install and write a letter to the software publisher stating: "I purchased the software from on and upon running the install notices unacceptable terms in the license. This was my first notice of the license terms and promptly cancelled the install so that appropriate license terms can be negotiated. Accordingly, I propose the following license terms:
1. I absolutely ownt the right to use the software on one computer of mine at a time.
2.
...creating innovative software, books, movies, music....
Somebody has to do the actual creative work so the pirates and open source developers will have something to copy.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Here is a copy of the JBuilder 6 license: little has changed from the JB5 license that I can see.
Hello,
I was planning to move into Linux development, and Kylix seemed to be the best available development environment for doing so. However, having reviewed your software license I have come to the conclusion that agreeing to such a license would not be a sound business decision.
Specifically,
==
12. AUDIT. During the term of this License and for one(1) year thereafter, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, Borland or its outside auditors will have the right to
enter your premises and access your records and computer systems to verify that you have paid to Borland the correct amounts owed under this License and determine whether the Products are being used inaccordance with the terms of this License. You willprovide reasonable assistance to Borland in connectionwith this provision. You agree to pay the cost of the audit if any underpayments during the period covered by theaudit amount to more than five percent (5%) of the fees actually owed for that period.
==
Of course, agreeing to disrupt productive work while you conduct your audit would cost my company far more than the original product licenses and so is an additional cost of using your software, one which cannot be justified.
However, if you were to agree to pay for the cost of disruption to my business of your intrusive audit, then perhaps there is room for negotiation.
Secondly, granting you the highest level of security access to our network would represent an unacceptable security breach. I sure you can understand that as your license terms implies that I am engaging in criminal activities, I must accord your company the same respect. To resolve this matter of trust, you could agree to allow my company access to your entire financial records, including bank account details, as a condition of presenting my cheque, being payment of said software license. If you would allow my company access to your financial records and bank account details, then we could certainly allow you access to our network.
Additionally,
==
14.4 No Jury Trials; No Joinder. Each party hereby irrevocably waives its right to a jury trial in any legal action, suit or proceeding between the parties arising out of or relating to this License. A copy this License may be filed with the court as written consent by both parties to a bench trial. You agree that any dispute you may have against Borland cannot be joined with any dispute of any other person or entity in a lawsuit, arbitration or any other proceeding, or resolved on a classwide basis.
==
While I have no intention of ever taking Borland to court, or joining a class action against them, it is preposterous to ask that I would waive any rights accorded to me by the Constitution or Common Law of the country I live in. Furthermore, it may in fact be impossible to waive such rights under the current laws anyway.
This clause implies a contempt of your customers that is totally unwarranted. It is insulting, and it reflects poorly on the character of the managers and directors of Borland. It certainly does not represent a company that I would wish to do business, or form a long term working relationship with.
It is my sincere hope that this license is a temporary oversight of a loyal but overzealous Borland employee, and that you are taking steps to remedy this situation before the consequences of this takes a toll on your companies sales and profitability.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Before you consider deleting this post, I should tell you how I came upon these serial numbers. They were mathematically generated via algorithmic means without even installing the software. This means that NO ONE has ever registered these keys with Borland/Inprise. So my question is.. if these keys belong to no one (they were created using 'random' seed values), who should Borland go after to make sure that the users of these keys are not violating the license agreement?
Enterprise License for JBuilder 5.0
Serial Number: xa52-3pcua-v58ug
Key: nuc-524
Foundation License for JBuilder 5.0
Serial Number: xa52-sanmu-pwnmk
Key: fcd-y2c
Professional License for JBuilder 5.0
Serial Number: xa52-?mz8q-spwzg
Key: yj7-3xw
Enterprise License for MobileSet Nokia Edition 5
Serial Number: xa72-43cq3-46d9f
Key: brj-4at
Foundation License for MobileSet Nokia Edition 5
Serial Number: xa72-3?h9u-rhcak
Key: rnm-kba
Professional License for MobileSet Nokia Edition 5
Serial Number: xa72-7vwry-ctf99 Key: 5cm-9tc
I'd love to see the press coverage of a few hundred programmers slaughtered by the federal government while bunkered up in some compound. Sign me up! (My hand-to-mouth existence since the dot-com crash has made me a little reckless about my own survival anyway.)
:)
Of course, in order to hold any water at first, we need some marginal constitutional protection - therefore, I hereby found the religion of The First Church of Information Sharing and Reverse Engineering, of which I declare myself as High Templar Priest Coder. Upon establishing religious recognition, my first task as the Church's spiritual leader will be to render petty licensing and security laws inapplicable to faithful followers, since such edicts blatantly violate our Consitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of religion. Rally unto my banner, O Slashdot Members! Let not the Oppressor restrain thy hand at undoing weak security algothithms! Come before me and find safety at http://ww-...
[1:26 AM] Er, ummm, it looks like someone just broke into my webserver and decompiled all my servlets. Wow, oh boy, they certainly did a fair number to my machine. Gimme a few hours, I'll try to get the Church back online in just a moment...
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
How untrue, considering poetry itself does not originate from science. It is the other way around, many scientists turn their backs on life. Except the greatest ones, they've always acknowledged that science is just a lesser expression of the real thing, just like other arts.
"I sit at a computer all day writing posts to Slashdot. Amazing!"
Your argument is essentially that we can all be safe and happy, knowing that careful selective enforcement from the responsible contract writer will keep things reasonable? No thank you. Selective enforcement is not the sort of thing I'm willing to rely on for my privacy.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
I was planning on upgrading my C++ Builder, but now I won't. It wouldn't surprise me if this same licence appears in all their products.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Not only is their License stupid but their Kylix 2.0 product registration is ludicrous. In fact it is not a "Product Registration" at all. It's more a silly attempt at "copy protection" that is driving honest customers away. I know because my school purchased a license certificate for 40 licenses. You'd think that we'd register once and that would be that... but NO WAY! Borland's absurd resistration scheme requires each student to register. This means we have to give our s/n and key to all students who use out lab. Not only that but when a student switches to another Linux box he finds he must register again! This is because we have each student's home directory NFS'd from a central server. Borland's support and marketing people have been no help at all in solving this problem. We've had no choice but to return their product and not teach Kylix at out school. It's too bad because we really like Kylix and thought we were helping Borland by teaching developers to use their product.
John Selmys
Seneca College
Toronto, ON CANADA