Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (08/05/89)
In article <5486@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > > [back to commercial licenses] > > Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that > > doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that > > the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want > > them to have a trivial installation process. > > Check out any of Borland's products, Microsoft C, Lattice C, Lattice C++, > Aztec C, or any of the other microcomputer compiler vendors. I have. I purchased Turbo Prolog around December of 1987. I received the earliest release, which is full of bugs. Hoping for fixes in the next version, I sent in several detailed bug reports. No thank-you letter was ever sent; indeed, Borland didn't even acknowledge receipt of my bug reports. When a decent version came out a few months later, I called Borland to ask about the upgrade fee: it was $75. That plus the price I'd paid only a few months earlier ($60-$70) totalled about $20 more than the price of the new version! About a year ago, I wrote a letter to their Customer "Service" Dept to complain about the ridiculous charge for an upgrade from a version that fell far short of its advertised capabilities. The response? ``Our new version has so many improvements and bug fixes that we feel that our fee for an upgrade is justified'' (paraphrasing)! My complaint that my bug reports were never acknowledged drew thanks long overdue. Another netter suggests that "anyone who contributes a bug report that is used by a software vendor to make a fix, and hence enhance the value of the product, is due royalties on all future sales of the product containing the fix." If vendors are going to be so parsimonious about upgrades, I'll have to agree. It'll be a cold day in hell when I pay Bugs-R-Us, Inc, $60-$70 to be their thankless alpha-tester again. --Scott Scott Horne Undergraduate programmer, Yale CS Dept Facility horne@cs.Yale.edu ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne Home: 203 789-0877 SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 Work: 203 432-1260 Summer residence: 175 Dwight St, New Haven, CT Dare I speak for the amorphous gallimaufry of intellectual thought called Yale?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/06/89)
In article <68726@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: > In article <5486@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: > > In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > > [back to commercial licenses] > > > Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that > > > doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that > > > the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want > > > them to have a trivial installation process. > > Check out any of Borland's products, Microsoft C, Lattice C, Lattice C++, > > Aztec C, or any of the other microcomputer compiler vendors. > I have. [long list of problems with Borland's support and buggy software] Quite irrelevant. Have a look at the subject under discussion. Has Borland ever required you to: a) Buy time on any hardware. b) Require that anyone you write code for also buy Borland products? Or, for that matter: c) Charged your royalties on your programs? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (08/07/89)
In article <5559@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: [ much deleted ] > Have a look at the subject under discussion. Has Borland ever required you > to: > a) Buy time on any hardware. > b) Require that anyone you write code for also buy Borland products? > Or, for that matter: > c) Charged your royalties on your programs? Bing! When Borland started out, they were charging a *lot* of money for royalties. One of their original strategies was "so many people will buy our $79 compiler, that if 1% goes commercial, we'll be rich!" (also, back then you could only buy directly from them, so while uSoft was seeing $100 of the $300 you spent on their compiler, Borland was seeing $79 of the $79 you spent). Of course, people complained about the royalties (a Mr. J.P. of Byte fame included) and they changed their strategy. This is not a flame, just a correction. Personally, I think both sides are wrong and that we should go back to the old days of computing. To own a computer you had to hire a staff of people to design, build, and program it. Want a program? Have them write it. Does someone else want a copy? Too bad, incompatible vacuum tubes. Want a word processor? Sorry, you only have enough storage for a paragraph. Deal. Gimme that ol' time computin' :-) > Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Tom Limoncelli -- tlimonce@drunivac.Bitnet -- limonce@pilot.njin.net Drew University -- Box 1060, Madison, NJ -- 201-408-5389 Standard Disclaimer: I am not the mouth-piece of Drew University
csmith@mozart.uucp (Chris Smith) (08/07/89)
In article <5559@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Or, for that matter: > c) Charged your royalties on your programs? For an answer to the unloaded form of this question, you don't have to look too far. For a recent example, nethack was posted with this: 4. Before you do anything else, please read carefully the file called 'license' in the auxil subdirectory. It is expected that you comply with the terms of that license, and we are very serious about it. In particular, you are prohibited by the terms of the license from using NetHack 3.0 for gainful purposes. Or see rec.humor.funny for the "Nobody may make Money off This but Me" rule. So you can't sell nethack, or enhance it and sell it, or sell gcc or any modification of it. Whether you feel this way about the software you yourself give away or not, why the frenzy?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/07/89)
In article <1493@convex.UUCP>, csmith@mozart.uucp (Chris Smith) writes: > So you can't sell nethack, or enhance it and sell it, or sell gcc or > any modification of it. Whether you feel this way about the > software you yourself give away or not, why the frenzy? Because (a) I don't feel that way about the software I've given away, and (b) Nobody is going to be tricked into putting their code into the FSF version of the public domain by Nethack. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (08/08/89)
In article <5559@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <68726@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: > > In article <5486@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > > > [back to commercial licenses] > > > > Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that > > > > doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that > > > > the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want > > > > them to have a trivial installation process. > > > > Check out any of Borland's products, Microsoft C, Lattice C, Lattice C++, > > > Aztec C, or any of the other microcomputer compiler vendors. > > > I have. > [long list of problems with Borland's support and buggy software] > > Quite irrelevant. > > Have a look at the subject under discussion. Has Borland ever required you > to: > > a) Buy time on any hardware. No, but this is irrelevant. I installed its software onto my own machine. If I'd wanted to install it onto a machine that I didn't own, then yes, I would have had to buy time on the machine. This was the point of discussion. > b) Require that anyone you write code for also buy Borland products? > c) Charged your royalties on your programs? I don't have the license here. I'll check into this. But I'm not sure what your point is. --Scott Scott Horne Undergraduate programmer, Yale CS Dept Facility horne@cs.Yale.edu ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne Home: 203 789-0877 SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 Work: 203 432-1260 Summer residence: 175 Dwight St, New Haven, CT Dare I speak for the amorphous gallimaufry of intellectual thought called Yale?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/08/89)
In article <68903@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: > But I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that your comment is irrelevant to the subject under discussion: whether or not the FSF licensing terms are better or worse than the terms of commercial software packages. Mike Meyer seems convinced that the norm is to require royalties on compiled programs. I just listed a bunch of companies... the majority of compiler companies for the IBM-PC... that don't. Whether the products are good or not is not relevant. Plenty of people find them adequate. Personally, I don't care for Borland's products either... but they do a better job than GNU CC on an IBM-PC, XT, or AT. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
csmith@mozart.uucp (Chris Smith) (08/08/89)
In article <5564@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > (b) Nobody is going to be tricked into putting their code into the FSF > version of the public domain by Nethack. There's peril in everything, then. You can't set up a business around Annotated New York Times audio cassettes for harried commuters. Normal copyrights don't force you to publish the annotations, but you can't do anything useful with them without the NYT, either. But you can build whatever you want out of FSF software with no danger at all if you're willing to publish the sources of the result. If somebody set up an Encyclopaedia Britannica server that would distribute articles, freely usable under the restriction that a copy of any article containing a quote be returned to the server for redistribution, would that also be a trick?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/08/89)
In article <Aug.6.15.05.50.1989.4384@pilot.njin.net>, limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: > Bing! When Borland started out, they were charging a *lot* of money > for royalties... I didn't know that, but it still supports my point. Market forces work, and things like the GNU copyleft don't... unless your goal is political change rather than getting the best software out to the most people and still making a living. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (08/08/89)
In article <5580@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Whether the products are good or not is not relevant. Plenty of people > find them adequate. Personally, I don't care for Borland's products > either... but they do a better job than GNU CC on an IBM-PC, XT, or AT. GNU CC doesn't even run on a PC (so far as I know). Your comment is therefore meaningless. --Scott Scott Horne Undergraduate programmer, Yale CS Dept Facility horne@cs.Yale.edu ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne Home: 203 789-0877 SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 Work: 203 432-1260 Summer residence: 175 Dwight St, New Haven, CT Dare I speak for the amorphous gallimaufry of intellectual thought called Yale?
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (08/09/89)
In article <5580@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes:
Peter> Whether the products are good or not is not relevant. Plenty of
Peter> people find them adequate. Personally, I don't care for Borland's
Peter> products either... but they do a better job than GNU CC on an
Peter> IBM-PC, XT, or AT.
On 8 Aug 89 15:33:40 GMT,
Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) said:
Scott> GNU CC doesn't even run on a PC (so far as I know). Your comment is
Scott> therefore meaningless.
Uh, maybe that was his POINT? That since GCC won't even run on a PC, it's
not going to do a very good job for a PC-based programmer...
--
/\ | / |\ @bu-pub.bu.edu <preferred> | Christopher K. Davis, BU SMG '90
/ |/ | \ %bu-pub.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu | [No, I don't speak for BU...]
\ |\ | / <for stupid sendmails> | BITNET: smghy6c@buacca
\/ | \ |/ @bucsb.UUCP <last resort> or ...!bu-cs!bucsb!ckd if you gotta.
** IF YOU REPLY TO THE ADDRESS IN THE PATH: LINE IT *WILL* BOUNCE!!! --CKD **Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (08/09/89)
In article <36119@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, ckd@bu-pub (Christopher K Davis) writes: > On 8 Aug 89 15:33:40 GMT, > Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) said: > > Scott> GNU CC doesn't even run on a PC (so far as I know). Your comment is > Scott> therefore meaningless. > > Uh, maybe that was his POINT? That since GCC won't even run on a PC, it's > not going to do a very good job for a PC-based programmer... The best you can say without entailing yourself in somewhat arcane philosophical discussion is that existing commercial PC compilers do a better job than existing GNU PC compilers, as the latter don't exist. This enforces *my* point: that commercial compilers are so much more popular than noncommercial ones only because noncommercial ones don't exist (or are few, anyway). --Scott Scott Horne Undergraduate programmer, Yale CS Dept Facility horne@cs.Yale.edu ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne Home: 203 789-0877 SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 Work: 203 432-1260 Summer residence: 175 Dwight St, New Haven, CT Dare I speak for the amorphous gallimaufry of intellectual thought called Yale?