..."it seems pretty reasonable to me".

Only, what seems pretty reasonable to *me*, is their stipulation that you pay for the audit *IF AND ONLY IF* you *ACTUALLY _A_R_E_* infringing on their copyright. What's so unreasonable about that?!?

OTOH, yeah sure, he (and all those posters on Freshmeat) do have a point, about the audits *being done in the first place*... But that's not what he emphasised to the _Reg_; the not-so-unreasonable cost bit was.

Furthermore: A] What company *doesn't* have those provisions in their EULA? B] Isn't it enough that a company joins the SPA or something, and they get those audits done for them, perhaps even *without* mentioning them specifically in their EULA? C] If the audit clause is, as many on Freshmeat (and I think Karsten in his original post about it here?) say, an illegal and unenforcable provision anyway, then isn't it a tad silly to harp on that specific clause to the (near-)exclusion of the rest of the EULA?

Also, his flippant remark to the [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23658.html|Register][*],

Borland's the three-ounce gorilla out of its league. Microsoft can throw its licensing weight around, but a niche player - despite some nice tools and avid fans - has no leverage

-- seems particularly ass-backwards. Wouldn't it be WORSE if a really BIG "gorilla" like Microsoft did this[+], than a comparatively harmless "three-ounce" one like Borland? Yes, of course it would be (=is). So YTF does he make it sound as if it's *worse* from Borland -- is he tacitly *condoning* it when "the big gorilla" does it, or WTF?!?

---

[*]: BTW, K, give Orlowski the [link|http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/fsl-discuss/|correct link] to your mailing-list -- the one he has gave me a 404.

[+]: Which they DO, don't they?

Ben T:

The Register may have quoted the payment terms. But Karsten's quote is about the fact that Borland has unreasonable license terms,

No, it's about how Microsoft can get away with it -- formulated so blandly as to seem to be condoning it, from them -- while Borland can't.

And you're trying to imply that *I* read it carelessly?

and Duchane's quote makes it damned clear that the license terms that bug him is the ability to come in and audit you.

Yup -- but he's not Karsten. (AFAIK?)

Knowing Karsten a bit, the idea of paying for copyright violations isn't a big deal. The idea of random audits is.

Yeah, I did pretty much the opposite of giving him the benefit of the doubt, on what wasn't explicitly quoted in the article... Sorry 'bout that, K. (But on what substance there *was*, I still think I read it more accurately than you, Ben.)

Don't blame the Register's slant on Karsten.

And don't try to excuse Karsten's quote with *Duchane's* "slant".

If there are reasonable and an unreasonable options for what to be POed at Borland about, it is best to assume that Karsten is upset about the reasonable one.

Huh -- what kind of boring let's-all-agree discussion would *that* give us here?!? ("What's next, you want us all to sing _We Shall Overcome_ in chorus?" ;^)

Now that said, the idea of the audits isn't something to just lightly brush off.

No, of course not -- but it still seems silly, going to these hysterics because of the "three-ounce gorilla"'s doing it, when AFAIK all the other more dangerous beasts are doing it too.

The idea of having a company who might be a potential competitor come in and audit what you have on your computer systems is very, very chilling.

"Competitor"?!? D'you really think that many *development-tool* (compilers, etc) companies use Borland tools? One would think they'd tend to eat their own dog-food...

You are a rabid Borland fan. We all know that.

Yup.

Actually, that's why I felt OK with at least partly defending them -- it's not as if I'm trying to *sneak* any pro-corporation viewpoint on y'allses, anyway... Right? :-)

But please come back to rationality

Care to take that back, please?

long enough to see that Borland is trying to hand itself the kind of powers that jack-booted thugs all over drool about.

Just like any other commercial proprietary-software company.

And as long as they pursue that course, they deserve to be regarded as jack-booted thugs.

As much as any other commercial proprietary-software company, yes.

But hardly more.

Ben:

Now ["how", I assume -- CRC] can you read this as condoning Microsoft's behaviour? It is a statement of fact, Microsoft gets away with crap.

...then at least pretty much resigned to it, no?

And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft?

Actually, that's *not* (the main point of) what he says:

"Any sane person seeing these licensing terms can only do as Duchene suggests: destroy all copies of Borland software and turn to one of the other proprietary, or better free, products available."

Turning to free products is optional, "destroy all copies of Borland software" is not.

Funny... Care to explain how those terms in a NEW license are supposed to affect my use of, say, my copy of Delphi 5? I should rush out and "destroy all copies" of *that*, too?!?

(Incidentally when Karsten announced the thread in the Open Forum, he made it clear what he didn't like. It was the performance of the audits. Not payments.)

Thanks ever so much for *assuming*, _again_, I didn't know that. Too bad that forum doesn't have quite the same number of readers as the Reg, eh?

Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again.

Karsten:

[Quoting Ben, then me (quoting Karsten):]

And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft?

Actually, that's *not* (the main point of) what he says:

[Karsten:] "Any sane person seeing these licensing terms can only do as Duchene suggests: destroy all copies of Borland software and turn to one of the other proprietary, or better free, products available."

Turning to free products is optional, "destroy all copies of Borland software" is not.

It's an and.

Yeah -- it's an "and", the first term of which is "destroy all copies of Borland software" *without* any option, and the second term of which is *either* "[turn to] other proprietary [products]", *or* "better [turn to] free, products".

So how, exactly, was your observation that "it's an 'and'" supposed to logically prove that you didn't, in fact, say exactly what I said you did?!?

If you're referring to my intent, both actions are recommended.

Only, one is optionally recommended and the other unconditionally recommended. And if it wasn't your intent to say that, then you fucking well shouldn't have *written* precisely that.

Don't try to blame *me* for *your* inability to say what you (now claim you) intended to say -- 't'would be more appropriate for you to say "Thank you for the lesson, master. I shall endeavour to do better in the future", than to try and kibitz about the objective fact that you said what you actually _said_, be that what you meant or not.

Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again.

Grow up, Christian.

Shut up, Karsten.

Da K

The link works, it points to the list archives.

No, it bloody well doesn't -- it gives me a [link|http://lists.alt.org/mailmain/listinfo/fsl-discuss|404 Not Found] error, at home now as well as at work this morning. Cutting it down to [link|http://lists.alt.org/|http://lists.alt.org/] and working from there, I found that you (or Orlowski) probably meant [link|http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss|this page], which *does* point to [link|http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/fsl-discuss/|the archives]. The difference is in the number of 'i's; there's two in "mailmain", where there should be only one for "mailman".

What Andrew had wanted from me was a read on the legality of the EULA. I'm not qualified to discuss that. Had to settle for the rant.

And if you had nothing to say, just *saying* that you had nothing to say evidently wasn't an option...?

For a media whore, I'd say perhaps you need a bit of a more discerning pimp.

There are two aspects to the rant. There's the legality of the issue (and it's not just the "you have to pay for the audit" bit, read the [link|http://freshmeat.net/.misc/borland-license.txt|license] and background at the Reg article),

Thank you SOOO fucking much for assuming I hadn't done that. WTF is this, Ben's and your day, *both*, for talking down to me when it's *you* who haven't done your homework[*]?!?

YES, FUCKITALL, I _K_N_O_W_ that that was what the guy at Freshmeat (and most of the follow-up posters) complained about -- as *you* would have *known* I did, if you'd read the freaking post you fucking well replied to! -- but that wasn't what *you* said in Orlowski's article! Do try and keep up, will you?

which I'd suggest is in question, though I'm not sure. There's additional background that Andrew didn't put in (and I write my bites the way I know they're going to be used: just give enough that you know they'll use it or toss it).

Blah, blah -- you sound as if you expected us to reply to the bits you *didn't* write. Sorry, but even I am not *that* fucking clairvoyant.

There's also the strategic side. And that's where my comments hold.

And thus expose the naked irrelevance of the rest of your "rant".

Microsoft, for better or worse, could pull something like this off. Their market position is such that they'd be able to do it and still sell product. Mind, the same moral and legal questions exist. Borland's just not in the same position at all.

So let's all pile on Borland, because *they* are obviously the bigger danger to Life, Happiness, and the American Pie! Er, Way! Or, um... Oh, whatever.


[SNIP: Irrelevant references to... Well, apparently to K's housing problems.]

The point is that you can't fight the market. Borland is trying to muscle in some aggregious licensing terms. It's only (IMVAO) going to lose marketshare in the process.

Yes, probably. It's not as if I'm saying it isn't a *stupid* move, you know...

But, hey, just out of curiosity, how would *you* try to fight "piracy" in Borland's particular situation? Did you even understand, from that license you seem to think you have read oh-so-much-more-carefully than I, *what the specific problem is*, that they are trying to get at with most of those -- at first glance somewhat mysterious -- clauses?

If not, then maybe it doesn't behoove *you* to lecture down to *me* quite as much as you're prone to doing, now does it? (And no cheating, now -- if you need outside help to figure out what the mumbo-jumbo is really all about, I expect you to tell us so.)

Again, I am *not* saying that that's a particularly good solution to their (potentially huge) problem... But really I have to admit, I can't come up with a better one either.

Does this mean that MSFT is right in doing same or similar? No. But they can pull it off. At least in the short term.

So rail against something that *needs* railing against -- which would seem to be *them* doing things like this -- in stead of yelling your throat out over low-hanging fruits like "three-ounce gorillas".

---

[*]: In the narrow context of *this* discussion.

Karsten:

The point is that you can't fight the market. Borland is trying to muscle in some aggregious licensing terms. It's only (IMVAO) going to lose marketshare in the process.

Yes, probably. It's not as if I'm saying it isn't a *stupid* move, you know...

...OK, so (and I'm guessing here) but...we are agreed that this is idiotic on Borland's part then?

Yeah, sure. Haven't I said so two or three times already?

(BTW, it's "egregious"; sorry I forgot to mention that before.)


What we aren't agreeing on -- what you seem to be forgetting, or ignoring -- is that this is Borland you're dealing with here. Borland, of the No-Nonsense License (TM?), the "treat it like you would a book" guys. They have a history[*] of dealing reasonably fair with developers (their customers), and of rectifying it when they are about to fuck up. That, at least in my book, is one more reason why they don't deserve (as m)any cheap shots (as most other software companies), or wild "destry ALL copies of Borland software!" (apparently including Kahn's original-NoNonsense-licensed Turbo Pascal) over-reactions.

But, hey, just out of curiosity, how would *you* try to fight "piracy" in Borland's particular situation?

Real simple. Maybe simplistic.

I wouldn't.

Yeah, maybe... OTOH, maybe it is -- simplistic, that is.

But that's a subject for another discussion, looking at their situation per se without any preconcieved assumptions and histrionics. Let's shelve that one for a while, OK?

The simple truth is this: Borland doesn't need to worry about piracy, they need to worry about mindshare. Staying afloat and relevant. Getting people to use the prodct. Keeping the product alive.

Hey, it's not exactly as if nobody is using their product(S!) now.

Writing brain-dead licensing terms that a corporate risk manager is going to look at and say "no way, Jose", isn't going to cut it.

Huh?!? Why would a "corporate risk manager" suddenly react that way to *their* licensing terms, when he's taken 'em in his stride from everybody else (including a lot of other outfits much smaller than Microsoft) so far?

This is the song that Ed Foster at InfoWorld's been singing regardign UCITA and various EULA clauses for years.

And he's still railing against it, isn't he? He has to -- because those "corporate risk manager"s *aren't* saying "no way, Jose".

I'm definitely taking my free software biases to this, but you certainly don't have to be a free software freak to reach similar conclusions.

And I wouldn't think you *have* to be a "rabid Borland fan" to think this current spastic reaction against Borland, specifically, is a bit out of proportion.

You've snipped a fair bit of my post as irrelevant, I believe you're mistaken in doing so.

Sigh... I snipped (and commented on) that bit for two reasons: A) partly in jest; and B) partly because I thought it was obvious enough already.

Borland needs to grow, regardless of the cost.

What *is* this obsession with size... A misunderstanding of some thesis from economics, or just some general American thing?

I'll say it again, from the MSFT v. DoJ trial: launching new product today requires distributing at least a million free copies to gain mindshare.

Well, lucky for them they aren't launching any *new* product, then... (Kylix is just a port of an already existing product from Windows to Linux.) Last time they did, was when they introduced JBuilder, AFAICT.

Where'd it say that in the trial, BTW? (Honest question -- sounds interesting, but I must have missed it.)

Borland's going to have to divorce revenues from copies in distribution by one means or another, or they're going to have the action taken for them.

What, so now it's a given that the proprietary-software license-sales model is dead already? That's news to me. Do RMS and ESR know they've won? :-)

If not, then maybe it doesn't behoove *you* to lecture down to *me* quite as much as you're prone to doing, now does it? (And no cheating, now -- if you need outside help to figure out what the mumbo-jumbo is really all about, I expect you to tell us so.)

I'm not the one lecturing down, Sir Cyclic.

Oh, so you're saying that's *only* Ben?

More seriously: Then what do you call blithely claiming that "the link works" when, as demonstrated above -- you're welcome, BTW... -- it fucking well didn't?

Take a powder

And what, exactly, is that then?

tell us all what you're getting at, 'coz this dense Murkin ain't gettin' it.

The problem is, the compiler in Kylix Open Edition is the exact same one as in the Developer and Server (and, wouldn't you know it, "Enterprise") Editions.

So when the Borland Auditors show up on your doorstep, you slam the door in their faces and cry, triumphantly, "Don't come back until you have a search warrant!"... Then they go to a judge, and say they'd like one. As proof for their suspicion, they show the compiled binary you're distributing. (Let's assume there are some telltale marks in the binary that lets one identify it as compiled under Kylix.)

Then you show up, and tell the judge that *of course* your software is developed and compiled under Kylix -- you have the Open Edition; it's free for the download, and that's what you did, you say.

Case summarily dismissed.

So how are they going to get you to pay for the illicit copy of the Server Edition that you are *actually* using[+], when the only difference is the class libraries; how can they prove that that is what you're doing?

That is their dilemma, and AFAICS that is what this stupid audit clause is their attempt at solving.

---

[*]: A history that's looking a *little* bit shaky, from a few incidents during the last couple of years (the half-aborted Open-Source-ing of InterBase foremost among them). But still, on balance I have to say they definitely deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[+]: The same goes for the case when someone just renames all the relevant components by inheriting from them ("TMyMiddleWareThingy = class(TMiddleWareThingy);", "TMyRemoteDataServer = class(TRemoteDataServer);", etc) and then distributes the resulting binary components under some FreebieWarez license. Then others can actually use the legal Open Edition compiler and IDE -- in conjunction with these ripped-off class libraries, it effectively becomes a "pirated" copy of the more expensive version.