One thing you have to remember about game companies is that they don't have the same priorities as other software companies. Modern games are a special type of product. They have some interesting characteristics:
They often demand high performance, even if that means reengineering the whole thing.
They have a relatively short shelf-life in the stores.
Due to the previous item, they limit your reasonable amount of development time.
The companies making games want to sell to the most common platform. The expected shelf-life makes it hard to justify porting.
Games generally don't care about playing nice with other applications.
So this is good and bad for the Linux platform. DirectX provides a common API for the most popular platform (Win32). It also provides acceptable performance.
So what does Linux need to get a foothold? Well, simply having more users won't quite do it. Consider how slow developers are in releasing Mac ports of games. And there are quite a few Mac users out there.
Whatever API that is used for Linux must be usable on Win32 also (at least, as long as Win32 is the dominant platform). Furthermore, it needs to be equal to, or easier to code for than DirectX. If it can get improved performance, even better. Finally, compiling a Linux version vs. a Win32 version must require almost no changes. When this is accomplished, you will see DirectX begin to take a back seat. I expect that XFree86 4.x will help the situation also, especially as more hardware vendors lend support.
Game developers will jump ship and toss old code out the window as soon as you show them something better. We rewrite code all the time, and we don't usually care about backwards compatibility.
I wish I could provide a link on this - I will scrounge for one. I used to work on the VS team, though.
As I recall, MS played hardball with Borland awhile back. Essentially, MS scooped up some of Borland's key backend compiler gurus by offering them enormous amounts of $$. This really had a detrimental effect on Borland's success and at the same time, improved the Microsoft compiler line.
"garbage collection is slower than hand coded memory management" - You really ought to read some of the latest garbage collection papers. This is no longer true even for collectors managing C or C++ allocation. When given an environment like Java which doesn't allow pointers and other antiquated memory techniques a good dynamic compiler with a modern garbage collector is both faster and more efficient than any hand coded attempt on all but the most simple of applications.
Now, I have yet to see anyone provide concrete examples of a garbage collector performing better for the general case, than standard memory management. However, let's assume that the garbage collector provides a small performace gain overall.
Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, compilers don't understand the objective of the program they are dealing with the way assembly coders do. The same is true for a garbage collector.
I can speak from experience as a game programmer here. There are certain parts of a game which are time and performance critical. How can I trust a garbage collector not to slow things down in that section? Well, I can't. There has to be some form of programmer interaction telling it not to cleanup in section X of the code.
This isn't very practical for games though. Typically we want full control over the memory. We know the upper limit of what we need, and we don't care much about other applications. So we can allocate a large chunk at start time and then work within that, to avoid the new/delete/malloc/free overhead.
If removing "antiquated" things like pointers is the best solution, then we'd all be writing games in Java. OK well that's a stretch but you see my point...
Unfortunately I think we're forgetting the underlying question here. This question will, most likely, be decided years from now after numerous court battles.
Should consumers be allowed unrestricted personal use of DVD movies that they own?
Well, let's see...
The industry doesn't care if I:
- Play them (on a "sanctioned" player) - Make a backup on VHS (provided I have a "sanctioned" DVD player). - Sell them to someone else. - Break them. -... ?
Legal, but the industry doesn't want me to:
- Make a backup to DVD. - Play them on a non-sanctioned player. - Reverse engineer the encryption for purposes of interoperability (DMCA).
Illegal:
- Make copies for reasons other than fair use. - Other copyright violations (broadcasting it, or whatever).
The corporations in the DVD business are trying to change the law, folks. That's the bottom line. If they can win the proper court cases, then slowly but surely, the things they WISH were illegal will BECOME illegal.
This engine handles soundfx, music, and networking, in addition to graphics. Porting it to Linux will involve some work, but as others have pointed out - it has already been ported to other platforms. The code, at least in its latest incarnation, is more-or-less written with portability in mind.
I'm not one of the company's founders, but here's a look back in a nutshell:
The founders at Monolith (before Monolith existed), did a demo CD, showcasing some of the things they could do. It found its way into the hands of Microsoft who hired them to make a game sampler. They invested the money and started Monolith Productions.
The engine, as far as I know, was jointly developed by Microsoft and Monolith at first. Then Monolith didn't agree with the direction Microsoft wanted to take it. So Monolith bought it back from Microsoft - one of the few times someone has bought out technology from MS and not the other way around.
I do work at Monolith, but not on the engine team. So this is my own understanding, and may not be the company line:)
Nothing is wrong with me. I said the encryption provides no protection against copying. This is true. It does protect against playback (e.g. protected areas of the disc, region codes, yada).
I didn't say copying was easy. I didn't say it was economically feasible. But it IS possible to make a bit for bit copy of the entire disc without breaking the encryption. That is the point, which you seem to be missing.
And before anybody talks about how it's not economically feasible to burn a DVD, let me point out that to copy the content of a DVD disk does not mean it has to be written back to a DVD disk. Pulling it off of DVD and onto VCD or something is still copying.
...which may still be LEGAL. But that's beside the point...
Your basic argument is flawed. You're essentially stating that DVDs ARE copy protected because it is too difficult to make a bitwise copy.
Yet you continue on to say that economics and storage concerns do NOT present enough difficulty in copying because people will get around these limits sooner or later.
You can't have it both ways. DVDs are not copy protected by encryption, because copies can be made without circumventing the encryption. Difficulty of accomplishing that task is not the issue. That is a simple fact.
DVDs must be decrypted to VIEW them. Therefore, only "sanctioned" players - ones that the MPAA had released a decryption key to - could play them. The encryption provides NO protection against copying, with or without DeCSS.
I know this is pretty much common knowledge around here, but more of the mainstream media is starting to read this site. So they should hear it again.
The Lithtech engine is the underlying layer for the games. So if it gets ported to Linux, you can expect that it will be VERY easy to port other games to Linux in the future.
Lithtech handles more than just the graphics. There's sound and network support also. Porting this engine will be a big job, but that effort will then apply towards ALL games that use it.
The universe can be anyone's as long as they agree to distribute it under an Open Source license, eh?
Cmon... give me a break. Simply put, it does not pay to tell your competitors all your secrets. Yes Open Source has it's benefits, but when you are running a business, it pays to sacrifice some of this flexibility for increased profit. Just ask Bill.
This is even more of a concern for a company which has done nothing but R & D for five years (i.e. SPEND money).
Disclaimer 1: don't read this post if you haven't seen The Matrix.
Disclaimer 2: this stuff may seem obvious to people who have watched The Matrix more than once or twice. Sorry if I'm boring you:)
The scene where Neo is taken to the Oracle is quite interesting. I think it could cover a large portion of philosophy course. After seeing the movie a couple times, this scene really interested me.
Why? Well, as the movie progresses past that scene, it seems at first glance that the Oracle lied to Neo. Yeah everyone says "duh" he's the hero - of course he's The One. Morpheus later tells Neo "she told you exactly what you needed to hear", implying that the Oracle would lie if it lead Neo down the correct path.
But, at least in my interpretation, everything the Oracle told Neo was the truth. Morpheus himself did not completely understand the Oracle - he was in disbelief when he saw Neo die.
The Oracle however, knew this was one path that could happen. She told Neo that he would have to make a choice and that he or Morpheus WOULD die. She also told him that he's not The One. I think that he wasn't The One at that time. Notice how she also says "seems like you're waiting for something - maybe the next life - who knows?". Neo did die (flatlined), and then regained his life. At that point he had become The One. He didn't need to dodge bullets (as Morpheus had mentioned at the end of the agent training simulation).
And of course there are some religious parallels but I won't go there on this forum.
All in all, the Oracle scene was very well done, and linked in beautifully with the rest of the movie IMO.
Flame all you want, but try running an irc server on a large network for awhile, and then come back and let me know how you feel about computer crimes. Sometimes legal recourse IS the proper solution.
The damage is real and the cost is real. Yes, sometimes it's small. Other times it disrupts service for hundreds or thousands of other people.
Just because the person breaking into a system is polite doesn't mean he fully understands the system. (If that were true, one might argue that there's no challenge to break in). Because he doesn't know the whole system, there's a good chance that something gets changed or tinkered with that has an unintended effect.
It's a crime because you're messing with something that does not belong to you.
Whether property crimes are overpunished is another issue altogether.
Actually Bill really enjoys schmoozing with his developers. He always took an interest in what was going on and wanted to understand all the little details.
They have periodic "billg reviews" as well, which are not easy to prepare for. You have to know your product or feature 100% because you can expect that Bill is going to ask you intelligent questions on very specific things.
That said, he does have a well-known temper and can really come down hard on people. But I think he prides himself on his coding and really puts in an effort to keep up with the latest stuff.
Why? Because there are two types of crimes frequently seen: personal and property.
No, breaking into someone's computer shouldn't be treated like a physical assault. Not even close IMO.
But it SHOULD be treated like a property crime. After all, it is costing the victim money. If something of value is copied or destroyed then the victim is financially hurt. Say what you will about closed source, but it still holds a market value.
Hell it doesn't even have to be source code. People store all kinds of information on computers (credit cards, anyone?). Sure, this stuff should be secured, but there's no denying the fact that harm is done if someone steals it.
Even if nothing is done aside from breaking in the victim still loses. Why? He has to invest time (= money) in resecuring / reinstalling his machine.
Don't try to glorify computer intrusion as a harmless activity. It's not.
For what it's worth, I agree that sysadmins should work together to solve problems as much as possible before involving the authorities. It's generally a faster way to take care of the problem. But, when the abuse warrants it, either through damage, or through repeated activity, I have no problem contacting law enforcement to resolve the issue.
I dislike certification courses for the same reason I became disillusioned with courses taught in universities. All they provide, in most cases, is a gauge of how well you can study. How useful you are in a real environment is often quite another story.
In a sense, the ability to study and learn is what you WANT, for work based in theory (e.g. pure mathematics). But for applied engineering, you want someone who can solve problems. This is quite different from memorizing one particular solution to a problem.
When I'm deciding who to hire, this is a big factor. Their ability to cope with problems they've never seen before is at least as important to me as their list of certifications.
The other thing I find really annoying about certifications is their underlying purpose: revenue for the training company. Take the MCSE + Internet, for example. You could literally have some of the tests on it expire before you were finished with the whole certification. At which time, you shell out more money for the new test to keep yourself certified, etc etc...
My feeling is, if your company is going to pay 100% of your training costs, including any missed work, then hell yeah, go get certified. But I wouldn't give these certification companies $.02 out of my own pocket.
I dislike certification courses for the same reason I became disillusioned with courses taught in universities. All they provide, in most cases, is a gauge of how well you can study. How useful you are in a real environment is often quite another story. In a sense, the ability to study and learn is what you WANT, for work based in theory (e.g. pure mathematics). But for applied engineering, you want someone who can solve problems. This is quite different from memorizing one particular solution to a problem. When I'm deciding who to hire, this is a big factor. Their ability to cope with problems they've never seen before is at least as important to me as their list of certifications. The other thing I find really annoying about certifications is their underlying purpose: revenue for the training company. Take the MCSE + Internet, for example. You could literally have some of the tests on it expire before you were finished with the whole certification. At which time, you shell out more money for the new test to keep yourself certified, etc etc... My feeling is, if your company is going to pay 100% of your training costs, including any missed work, then hell yeah, go get certified. But I wouldn't give these certification companies $.02 out of my own pocket. Best regards, SEAL
Yes, this is true. You need a good chunk o' change, and a lawyer to do a patent search for you. The law has deemed that only patent attorneys are qualified to do this work.
So unfortunately, while patents are SUPPOSED to protect the little guy, in practice, the little guy is lucky to have the resources to even file for one (let alone get it approved).
This is a serious problem with the current system and bears examination. The status quo simply encourages more abuse by corporations.
1) Who can drive on public-owned roads in the U.S.? This would be the people you listed above (licensed drivers of the appropriate age, in vehicles that are licensed to them).
2) Who can be monitored on public-owned roads?
This is less well defined. How far can that monitoring go? You would need to do some research on that one. There are many search and seizure related cases which could provide precedents. However, as monitoring becomes more sophistcated I believe you will see more cases challenged in court. That's where it will be settled.
Similarily, many cases of avoiding monitoring are not well defined yet. You can dig up a few obvious ones (e.g. certain states don't allow radar detectors or license plate covers). Once again, though, as monitoring and evasion become better, more of these cases will end up in court.
My personal view is that tracking devices should not be installed without probable cause. That's how I would vote on such an issue anyhow. To allow more than that would lend itself to abuse. Wiretapping laws exist for similar reasons.
I'll ignore the possibility that this is very subtle sarcasm...;) Go read the LGPL and GPL (and BSD license, for that matter). Which one do you honestly think gives you more freedom?
The GPL is a restrictive license, and it is intentionally so. It makes life difficult for people writing commercial apps. If that's what you want, fine. But I think Borland would prefer to please as many audiences as possible. Therefore, an LGPL or BSD style license would be a better choice.
Slashdot Mirror
That way, regardless of whether or not the encrypted files are considered self-incriminatory, you'd be safe.
:)
Best regards,
SEAL
P.S. IANAL and under the f-ed up U.S. legal system, I would still expect to get held in contempt of court for a stunt like this...
So this is good and bad for the Linux platform. DirectX provides a common API for the most popular platform (Win32). It also provides acceptable performance.
So what does Linux need to get a foothold? Well, simply having more users won't quite do it. Consider how slow developers are in releasing Mac ports of games. And there are quite a few Mac users out there.
Whatever API that is used for Linux must be usable on Win32 also (at least, as long as Win32 is the dominant platform). Furthermore, it needs to be equal to, or easier to code for than DirectX. If it can get improved performance, even better. Finally, compiling a Linux version vs. a Win32 version must require almost no changes. When this is accomplished, you will see DirectX begin to take a back seat. I expect that XFree86 4.x will help the situation also, especially as more hardware vendors lend support.
Game developers will jump ship and toss old code out the window as soon as you show them something better. We rewrite code all the time, and we don't usually care about backwards compatibility.
Best regards,
SEAL
Looks like Microsoft's methods of recruiting weren't entirely kosher either.
Best regards,
SEAL
I wish I could provide a link on this - I will scrounge for one. I used to work on the VS team, though.
As I recall, MS played hardball with Borland awhile back. Essentially, MS scooped up some of Borland's key backend compiler gurus by offering them enormous amounts of $$. This really had a detrimental effect on Borland's success and at the same time, improved the Microsoft compiler line.
Not very friendly eh?
SEAL
Now, I have yet to see anyone provide concrete examples of a garbage collector performing better for the general case, than standard memory management. However, let's assume that the garbage collector provides a small performace gain overall.
Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, compilers don't understand the objective of the program they are dealing with the way assembly coders do. The same is true for a garbage collector.
I can speak from experience as a game programmer here. There are certain parts of a game which are time and performance critical. How can I trust a garbage collector not to slow things down in that section? Well, I can't. There has to be some form of programmer interaction telling it not to cleanup in section X of the code.
This isn't very practical for games though. Typically we want full control over the memory. We know the upper limit of what we need, and we don't care much about other applications. So we can allocate a large chunk at start time and then work within that, to avoid the new/delete/malloc/free overhead.
If removing "antiquated" things like pointers is the best solution, then we'd all be writing games in Java. OK well that's a stretch but you see my point...
Best regards,
SEAL
Unfortunately I think we're forgetting the underlying question here. This question will, most likely, be decided years from now after numerous court battles.
... ?
Should consumers be allowed unrestricted personal use of DVD movies that they own?
Well, let's see...
The industry doesn't care if I:
- Play them (on a "sanctioned" player)
- Make a backup on VHS (provided I have a "sanctioned" DVD player).
- Sell them to someone else.
- Break them.
-
Legal, but the industry doesn't want me to:
- Make a backup to DVD.
- Play them on a non-sanctioned player.
- Reverse engineer the encryption for purposes of interoperability (DMCA).
Illegal:
- Make copies for reasons other than fair use.
- Other copyright violations (broadcasting it, or whatever).
The corporations in the DVD business are trying to change the law, folks. That's the bottom line. If they can win the proper court cases, then slowly but surely, the things they WISH were illegal will BECOME illegal.
Tread carefully.
- SEAL
http://linuxvideo.org
SEAL
This engine handles soundfx, music, and networking, in addition to graphics. Porting it to Linux will involve some work, but as others have pointed out - it has already been ported to other platforms. The code, at least in its latest incarnation, is more-or-less written with portability in mind.
Best regards,
SEAL
The founders at Monolith (before Monolith existed), did a demo CD, showcasing some of the things they could do. It found its way into the hands of Microsoft who hired them to make a game sampler. They invested the money and started Monolith Productions.
The engine, as far as I know, was jointly developed by Microsoft and Monolith at first. Then Monolith didn't agree with the direction Microsoft wanted to take it. So Monolith bought it back from Microsoft - one of the few times someone has bought out technology from MS and not the other way around.
I do work at Monolith, but not on the engine team. So this is my own understanding, and may not be the company line :)
Best regards,
SEAL
I didn't say copying was easy. I didn't say it was economically feasible. But it IS possible to make a bit for bit copy of the entire disc without breaking the encryption. That is the point, which you seem to be missing.
SEAL
...which may still be LEGAL. But that's beside the point...
Your basic argument is flawed. You're essentially stating that DVDs ARE copy protected because it is too difficult to make a bitwise copy.
Yet you continue on to say that economics and storage concerns do NOT present enough difficulty in copying because people will get around these limits sooner or later.
You can't have it both ways. DVDs are not copy protected by encryption, because copies can be made without circumventing the encryption. Difficulty of accomplishing that task is not the issue. That is a simple fact.
SEAL
Repeat after me: it was never copy protection.
It was playback protection.
DVDs must be decrypted to VIEW them. Therefore, only "sanctioned" players - ones that the MPAA had released a decryption key to - could play them. The encryption provides NO protection against copying, with or without DeCSS.
I know this is pretty much common knowledge around here, but more of the mainstream media is starting to read this site. So they should hear it again.
SEAL
The Lithtech engine is the underlying layer for the games. So if it gets ported to Linux, you can expect that it will be VERY easy to port other games to Linux in the future.
Lithtech handles more than just the graphics. There's sound and network support also. Porting this engine will be a big job, but that effort will then apply towards ALL games that use it.
Best regards,
SEAL
The universe can be anyone's as long as they agree to distribute it under an Open Source license, eh?
Cmon... give me a break. Simply put, it does not pay to tell your competitors all your secrets. Yes Open Source has it's benefits, but when you are running a business, it pays to sacrifice some of this flexibility for increased profit. Just ask Bill.
This is even more of a concern for a company which has done nothing but R & D for five years (i.e. SPEND money).
Best regards,
SEAL
Disclaimer 2: this stuff may seem obvious to people who have watched The Matrix more than once or twice. Sorry if I'm boring you :)
The scene where Neo is taken to the Oracle is quite interesting. I think it could cover a large portion of philosophy course. After seeing the movie a couple times, this scene really interested me.
Why? Well, as the movie progresses past that scene, it seems at first glance that the Oracle lied to Neo. Yeah everyone says "duh" he's the hero - of course he's The One. Morpheus later tells Neo "she told you exactly what you needed to hear", implying that the Oracle would lie if it lead Neo down the correct path.
But, at least in my interpretation, everything the Oracle told Neo was the truth. Morpheus himself did not completely understand the Oracle - he was in disbelief when he saw Neo die.
The Oracle however, knew this was one path that could happen. She told Neo that he would have to make a choice and that he or Morpheus WOULD die. She also told him that he's not The One. I think that he wasn't The One at that time. Notice how she also says "seems like you're waiting for something - maybe the next life - who knows?". Neo did die (flatlined), and then regained his life. At that point he had become The One. He didn't need to dodge bullets (as Morpheus had mentioned at the end of the agent training simulation).
And of course there are some religious parallels but I won't go there on this forum.
All in all, the Oracle scene was very well done, and linked in beautifully with the rest of the movie IMO.
Best regards,
SEAL
IRC server.
Flame all you want, but try running an irc server on a large network for awhile, and then come back and let me know how you feel about computer crimes. Sometimes legal recourse IS the proper solution.
The damage is real and the cost is real. Yes, sometimes it's small. Other times it disrupts service for hundreds or thousands of other people.
Just because the person breaking into a system is polite doesn't mean he fully understands the system. (If that were true, one might argue that there's no challenge to break in). Because he doesn't know the whole system, there's a good chance that something gets changed or tinkered with that has an unintended effect.
It's a crime because you're messing with something that does not belong to you.
Whether property crimes are overpunished is another issue altogether.
- SEAL
Actually Bill really enjoys schmoozing with his developers. He always took an interest in what was going on and wanted to understand all the little details.
o -please-don't-tar-and-feather-me :)
They have periodic "billg reviews" as well, which are not easy to prepare for. You have to know your product or feature 100% because you can expect that Bill is going to ask you intelligent questions on very specific things.
That said, he does have a well-known temper and can really come down hard on people. But I think he prides himself on his coding and really puts in an effort to keep up with the latest stuff.
Best regards,
SEAL-who-used-to-be-on-the-Visual-Studio-team-s
No, breaking into someone's computer shouldn't be treated like a physical assault. Not even close IMO.
But it SHOULD be treated like a property crime. After all, it is costing the victim money. If something of value is copied or destroyed then the victim is financially hurt. Say what you will about closed source, but it still holds a market value.
Hell it doesn't even have to be source code. People store all kinds of information on computers (credit cards, anyone?). Sure, this stuff should be secured, but there's no denying the fact that harm is done if someone steals it.
Even if nothing is done aside from breaking in the victim still loses. Why? He has to invest time (= money) in resecuring / reinstalling his machine.
Don't try to glorify computer intrusion as a harmless activity. It's not.
For what it's worth, I agree that sysadmins should work together to solve problems as much as possible before involving the authorities. It's generally a faster way to take care of the problem. But, when the abuse warrants it, either through damage, or through repeated activity, I have no problem contacting law enforcement to resolve the issue.
Best regards,
SEAL
I dislike certification courses for the same reason I became disillusioned with courses taught in universities. All they provide, in most cases, is a gauge of how well you can study. How useful you are in a real environment is often quite another story.
In a sense, the ability to study and learn is what you WANT, for work based in theory (e.g. pure mathematics). But for applied engineering, you want someone who can solve problems. This is quite different from memorizing one particular solution to a problem.
When I'm deciding who to hire, this is a big factor. Their ability to cope with problems they've never seen before is at least as important to me as their list of certifications.
The other thing I find really annoying about certifications is their underlying purpose: revenue for the training company. Take the MCSE + Internet, for example. You could literally have some of the tests on it expire before you were finished with the whole certification. At which time, you shell out more money for the new test to keep yourself certified, etc etc...
My feeling is, if your company is going to pay 100% of your training costs, including any missed work, then hell yeah, go get certified. But I wouldn't give these certification companies $.02 out of my own pocket.
Best regards,
SEAL
I dislike certification courses for the same reason I became disillusioned with courses taught in universities. All they provide, in most cases, is a gauge of how well you can study. How useful you are in a real environment is often quite another story. In a sense, the ability to study and learn is what you WANT, for work based in theory (e.g. pure mathematics). But for applied engineering, you want someone who can solve problems. This is quite different from memorizing one particular solution to a problem. When I'm deciding who to hire, this is a big factor. Their ability to cope with problems they've never seen before is at least as important to me as their list of certifications. The other thing I find really annoying about certifications is their underlying purpose: revenue for the training company. Take the MCSE + Internet, for example. You could literally have some of the tests on it expire before you were finished with the whole certification. At which time, you shell out more money for the new test to keep yourself certified, etc etc... My feeling is, if your company is going to pay 100% of your training costs, including any missed work, then hell yeah, go get certified. But I wouldn't give these certification companies $.02 out of my own pocket. Best regards, SEAL
Frequently Unanswered Questions :>
Yes, this is true. You need a good chunk o' change, and a lawyer to do a patent search for you. The law has deemed that only patent attorneys are qualified to do this work.
So unfortunately, while patents are SUPPOSED to protect the little guy, in practice, the little guy is lucky to have the resources to even file for one (let alone get it approved).
This is a serious problem with the current system and bears examination. The status quo simply encourages more abuse by corporations.
Best regards,
SEAL
2) Who can be monitored on public-owned roads?
This is less well defined. How far can that monitoring go? You would need to do some research on that one. There are many search and seizure related cases which could provide precedents. However, as monitoring becomes more sophistcated I believe you will see more cases challenged in court. That's where it will be settled.
Similarily, many cases of avoiding monitoring are not well defined yet. You can dig up a few obvious ones (e.g. certain states don't allow radar detectors or license plate covers). Once again, though, as monitoring and evasion become better, more of these cases will end up in court.
My personal view is that tracking devices should not be installed without probable cause. That's how I would vote on such an issue anyhow. To allow more than that would lend itself to abuse. Wiretapping laws exist for similar reasons.
Best regards,
SEAL
The GPL is a restrictive license, and it is intentionally so. It makes life difficult for people writing commercial apps. If that's what you want, fine. But I think Borland would prefer to please as many audiences as possible. Therefore, an LGPL or BSD style license would be a better choice.
SEAL
http://www.informa tik.uni-rostock.de/~urausche/imgbookmarks.html
- SEAL