jnj@mibte.UUCP (07/09/87)
Does anyone know if the 5.0 license agreement will be the same as 4.0? That is, does Microsoft demand that you display THEIR company name on the screen everytime YOUR program is run? I sincerely hope not, and now would be a good time for them to discontinue this practice. I've talked to several people at microsoft and can't convince them that this practice is not in their best interest. I believe in giving proper credit when it is due, but why they feel their compiler/linker is the soul of the program is beyond me. The programs we develop don't even display our OWN company name, and I'm unaware of other software companies that expect this behavior. I really have a hard time recommending any product that uses this forced advertising. Any comments? Jim Jackson (Michigan Bell) mibte!jnj P.S. You DID read the license before you opened the shrink-wrap, didn't you? Disclaimer: This message was generated on an IBM-AT, powered by Detroit Edison, using Wordstar 4.0, on 3M diskettes.
jallen@netxcom.UUCP (John Allen) (07/10/87)
In article <2262@mibte.UUCP> jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) writes: > Does anyone know if the 5.0 license agreement will be the same as >4.0? That is, does Microsoft demand that you display THEIR company name >on the screen everytime YOUR program is run? ... > I really have a hard time recommending any product that uses this >forced advertising. Any comments? > Jim Jackson (Michigan Bell) mibte!jnj ... >P.S. You DID read the license before you opened the shrink-wrap, didn't you? My question is: Why not modify the license agreement before opening the floppy seals? Are my changes any less legal/valid than their (Microsoft's) original stuff? What if I write in: "By accepting my money, Microsoft agrees to be bound by my changes in, and additions to this license agreement.", then strike out the part about including their copyright? ... These agreements are all just so much crap anyway, aren't they? ... John Allen ========================================================================= NetExpress Communications, Inc. seismo!{sundc|hadron}!netxcom!jallen 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 300 (703) 749-2238 Vienna, Va., 22180 =========================================================================
jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) (11/30/87)
Regarding item #2 on the MICROSOFT COMPILER LICENSE:
2. DISTRIBUTION OF RUNTIME MODULES. Microsoft grants to you a royalty-free
right to reproduce and distribute the runtime modules of the COMPILER provided
that you: (a) ... (b) do not use Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks to
market your software product; (c) include Microsoft's copyright notice for the
COMPILER on your product label and as part of the sign-on message for your
software product; and (d) .... The "runtime modules" are those files in the
COMPILER that are identified in the documentation as required as required
during execution of your compiled programs. The runtime modules are limited
to runtime files, install files, and ISAM and REBUILD files.
Why, oh why would I want to display Microsoft's copyright notice on
a sign-on message for MY software product (c)??? And if I did, isn't this a
form of advertising/marketing that is expressly forbidden in (b)?
I really have a problem with (c). Why should Microsoft get top billing
when we programmers do all the work? Or am I reading too much into this?
DISCLAIMER: This message was created on 3M diskettes by an IBM/AT powered by
Detroit Edison.
Jim Jackson
{gamma|ihnp4}!mibte!jnjdhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (12/01/87)
In article <2412@mibte.UUCP> jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) writes: >Regarding item #2 on the MICROSOFT COMPILER LICENSE: > >2. DISTRIBUTION OF RUNTIME MODULES. I suspect you will get a deluge of responses to this, and most of them will be wrong. By "runtime module" Microsoft is referring to a separate library module that is not physically linked to your executable program. For example, there is a runtime module that makes compiled BASIC programs smaller. This does not refer to typical library code linked with a C program. There is no requirement that you mention Microsoft when you distribute a compiled C program. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (12/02/87)
I saw the software licensing on a friend's copy of MSC 4.0. I'm surprised that it has persisted through to 5.0 since Borland in partiular has a very liberal policy with their product. They also have an agreenment that can be read by a human without 6 years of law school. I was hoping that Borland's agreement would cause Microsoft to update theirs to something more reasonable. If I ever do market the software I am working on, I will not use MSC. I have no intention of giving a free plug to Microsoft via my software. I consider Mircsoft's stance akin to having Sears insist on having "This house was nailed together with a Sears hammer" stenciled on my front door. I would be willing, however, to give the Microsoft compiler credit in an appendix in the user's manual. As a user of programs myself I know that it is interesting to know from whence their code arose. (Of course, if I really care, I can alway peek with debug looking for the runtime library notice embedded in the code.) --Bill
richw@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rich Wagenknecht) (12/03/87)
In article <803@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > If I ever do market the software I am working on, I will not use > MSC. I have no intention of giving a free plug to Microsoft via my > software. I consider Mircsoft's stance akin to having Sears insist > on having "This house was nailed together with a Sears hammer" > stenciled on my front door. > I really believe all of this is much ado about nothing. The legal agreement is of course terrible to read (unless you're a laywer) but I believe its requirements are being misinterpreted. The legal agreement on the disc envelope is the same agreement used on all MS compilers I've seen. The particular reference concerning the distribution of run-time modules and the displaying of MS's name refers only to run time modules. In other words only libraries and/or programs which are required to run your software but are not part of the compiled code itself. The only package in my knowledge which does this is MS QuickBASIC (note: you don't have to use this library but it does make the size of your executable file much smaller). This clause does not apply to C programs unless MS distributed some kind of kernel which was required to run your code. > --Bill Rich W.
justin@inmet.UUCP (12/08/87)
/* Written 12:10 pm Dec 3, 1987 by richw@rosevax.UUCP in inmet:comp.lang.c */ In article <803@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > If I ever do market the software I am working on, I will not use > MSC. I have no intention of giving a free plug to Microsoft via my > software. I consider Mircsoft's stance akin to having Sears insist > on having "This house was nailed together with a Sears hammer" > stenciled on my front door. > I really believe all of this is much ado about nothing. ... > --Bill Rich W. /* End of text from inmet:comp.lang.c */ I agree. Chill out, guys! When I first started using Microsoft COBOL (God help me) some seven years ago, we were OVERJOYED to see this notice. All the other decent compilers that used runtime modules required *royalties* (remember these, boys and girls?). Microsoft is allowing you to distribute their object code, free of change, for just a credit. This seems like a pretty good deal to me. (Disclaimer: I have no relationship to Microsoft, other than having, I think, been used as an inadvertant beta site for their COBOL). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justin du Coeur in SCA, fandom, | Mundanely, (if you insist) Mark Waks or any interesting company | (617) 661-1840, x4704 ...{ihnp4, mirror, ima}!inmet!justin | Intermetrics, Inc. (aka I**2) or justin@inmet.COM | This space for rent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: No one knows who I am, anyway, so who am *I* to dictate policy?