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 =========================================================================
mike@mdbs.UUCP (Mike Gagle) (07/17/87)
>From: dennisti@microsoft@larry >To: LOCAL!mike >Subject: Licensing Crud >Date: Thu Jul 16 10:56:40 1987 > >Mike: I think this will clarify the confusion regarding the runtimes >for C. Please pass it on to the originator of the complaint so we can >stop the misunderstanding before it goes further. Let me know if you >need additional clarification. >Thanks, Dennis > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >>From: jnj@mibte.UUCP (Jim Jackson) >>Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.lang.c >>Subject: MSC 5.0 License Agreement >>Organization: Michigan Bell Telephone Company > >> 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've talked to several people at microsoft and can't convince them >>that this practice is not in their best interest. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >A user has the right to distribute their .exe file. > >The paragraph that he's referring to is #2. Distribution of Runtime Modules. >At the end of this paragraph it explains what "Runtime Modules" are: > "The runtime modules are limited to runtime files, install files, and > ISAM and REBUILD files." > >--- These files are referring to products like BASIC and COBOL, where > we provide Runtime modules and in order to run your .exe, you > need to have the Runtime modules on the disk that comes with the > compiler. > And you need to have a Microsoft Copyright notice with these. > >In the case of C, the user creates a stand-alone program (the portions > of the runtime module are linked in). > >People should not distribute any portions of the Microsoft C compiler > or runtime libraries (slibc.lib,...) > >Hope this helps > I personally interpret this response as meaning that we are not required to propogate Microsoft's copyright notice for executables compiled with and utilizing libraries from the Microsoft C compiler. We sure do not intend to do so. Standard disclaimers apply. If Microsoft goes after you, you're on your own!
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!jnj
dhesi@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.