Slashdot Mirror
Borland Backs Down
Danborg writes: "Borland has backed down from its horrible Kylix/JBuilder license after all the bad press they received on Slashdot and Freshmeat. You may now all resume using Kylix and/or JBuilder. Seriously though, it's good to see a company respond to the voices of the online community, and admit it made a mistake. Good job Borland."
I don't understand why this was presented as backing down as opposed to a mistake as to which license gets associated with which product.
There's no reason not to believe them that this was an error and had not reflected a conscious effort to change licenses on individual instances.
It doesn't mention which bits they are intending to change... I wonder if the 'not produce competing products' part is included?
Currently, you couldn't legally use C++ Builder or Delphi/Kylix to write a database engine or an IDE, as I understand it...
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
If I were an enterprise volume customer, I would consider the terms of that licesnes to be onerous. Those terms are just wrong no matter who you are. A software license forcing you to submit to binding arbitration and random audits?! What a ridiculous thing. Next thing you know, cleaning product manufacturers will be coming with detailed sets of instructions and licenses requiring you to pay to have someone look over your shoulder to make sure you follow them whenever they like.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I would like to remind them of this:-
Never attribute to Malice what can be attributed to Incompitence
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Typically, it is up to the staff to catch those mistakes and argue with the staff lawyer to make sure it applies to situation. That rarely happens for a lot of reasons. Often I would get press releases for 5a.m. the next morning at 7a.m. the day of.
How in the world are developers, staff writers supposed to read it thoroughly? They can't. The mentality of the lawyers I've met is "be more restrictive" and ease up if people complain vs "be less restrictive." It's good the community spoke up and complained. That's part of the natural process. If all licenses were not restrictive, how would lawyers make a living or warrant their services :)
Right, my point exactly. The article sounds self-congratulatory as if "look what we were able to do." It says "after all the bad press they received on Slashdot and Freshmeat" as if they were the only ones. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it said LIKE slashdot and freshmeat.
They should have known how bad this was before publishing the EULA, especially since they are trying to court the open source fanatics of the world (I count myself in among that group)
They are no Microsoft, they cannot afford to be. They need all of us to combat MS business tactics.
They are in some dire need of bitch slapping, not praise.
~Sean
http://www.borland.com
This post is officially a circumvention device, in violation of the DMCA, since I have made easily accessible the copyrighted content to a large audience against their "copy protection", with that hyperlink.
Now does everyone see the problem with legalese?
It includes this passage (quoted under the Doctrine of Fair Use :)
"Whew! What a year!
"What does it all mean? I think it means that despite the economic downturn that swept through the country in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, despite the "burst" of the Internet bubble, a company can succeed by delivering great technology and paying attention to what developers need and want."
All together now: WE WANT THE GOOD OLD NO-NONSENSE LICENSE AGREEMENT, APPLIED AT EVERY LEVEL FROM HOBBYIST CODER TO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPER!! (Damn, that was loud!)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?