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."

14 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Out of control. by actappan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Out of control. by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We all have. What's worse is that news like this never ends up in the mainstream media which means the average computer user/software buyer never hears of this. Without their support/outrage, we won't be able to change much since the Slashdot crowd is a minority of the computer users out there.

    2. Re:Out of control. by cthugha · · Score: 5, Insightful
      IANAL, but as far as I'm concerned, having already purchased the software, whatever buttons I do or do not click on are of no legal significance whatsoever. If a software publisher wants we to agree to ludicrous licensing terms, they are free to present me with a contract before selling me their product.

      You may have purchased a copy of the software, but you have not purchased the right to use that copy. See, to use it, you generally have to copy it to your hard disk, and copyright gives exclusive rights over reproduction (not just distribution to a third party) to the copyright holder. In exchange for them granting the right to install, you have to submit to the licence conditions.

      Insane? Absolutely. What we need is copyright that only grants exclusive rights to distribute copies, not to make copies generally. It's a lot more sensible, since it protects only what copyright was originally intended to protect, and it would render these stupid EULAs void for a failure of consideration (i.e. the copyright holder isn't giving you any rights you don't already have, so they can't demand that you submit to draconian licence terms in exchange for nothing in return).

  2. I will make a bet... by jerw134 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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?

  3. What if the rest of the world worked this way? by sid_vicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Bad Time to Lost Customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I really want to use Kylix. I've been pushing it at work and actually started making progress early this week. I was to download the software this weekend, learn it, and demo it to the development staff next Wednesday.

    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.

  5. A lawyer please verify by demaria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. Has states gone competely nuts? by nusuth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Such a licence cannot be enforced in my country even though our laws are much more gestapoish compared to U.S. I don't think it can be enforced in states either.

    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!

  7. What Is With Borland's Lawyers? by Black+Art · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  8. free market by markj02 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is nothing wrong with Smith, Keynes, and the other economists: free markets work, and they work well. The problem is that our economy is increasing not a free market economy. You cannot have a free market economy in which the economy is dominated by a few large players (even if they are publically traded). You cannot have a free market economy in which players can buy the lawmakers. And a "free market" doesn't mean absence of government regulations, it means plenty of government regulations that create a level playing field for economic agents. "Free" there refers to the freedom to decide who you trade with at what price, it doesn't mean freedom to do anything you want.

    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.

    1. Re:free market by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • You cannot have a free market economy in which the economy is dominated by a few large players (even if they are publically traded)

      I think "publically traded" is largely an irrelevance now. It conjures up images of crowds of shareholder meetings full of mom and pop investors waving their umbrellas and demanding fair play.

      As you go on to say, the problem is that a few individuals control all the money/resources/power. The majority of shares in any given company are controlled (maybe not owned, but controlled) by a few individuals, either owned directly or controlled fund managers. Mom and pop are happy to abdicate their moral responsibilities to their fund manager, and just count the profits. It's all about the money. Principle, even legality is irrelevant. Look at Microsoft - a convicted monopolist, and yet the board continues on, because they smile and promise to keep those profits coming, regardless of trifling inconveniences like the government or the courts. They're as much as saying that they'll just ignore any judgement, and that's what the shareholders want to hear, because it means more profit.

      And that'll apply to Borland. There's no point emailing them and ranting about rights and principles. The only language they'll hear (now that they've gone Dark Side) is money, and the results of their actions now won't show until next quarter.

      So make them listen by speaking their language. Either don't buy their products, or better, buy their products and then return them. When you return them, then you can tell them it's because of the license, because - believe me - that's the only time that they'll care.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  9. Sending a letter by lblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  10. Not reading the license is the problem. by westfieldscientific · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 /home where the buffalo roam
  11. Re:Is Borland putting a gun to your head? by schof · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Your points are correct, but your conclusion is not. We have a free market, and the way it works is exactly the way this is working -- people make a fuss to pressure a company to change. Lots of people could have installed those products without carefully reading the license -- lord knows I never read them. (Perhaps I should start.) Raising this kind of fuss is exactly what we need. Just because Borland has the right to put just about anything they want in their license (and they do have that right) doesn't mean we shouldn't bitch and moan when we don't like what they do.