You are misreading

Post #24,301 by ben_tilly 1/14/02 1:34:10 PM Reply	You are misreading The Register may have quoted the payment terms. But Karsten's quote is about the fact that Borland has unreasonable license terms, and Duchane's quote makes it damned clear that the license terms that bug him is the ability to come in and audit you. Knowing Karsten a bit, the idea of paying for copyright violations isn't a big deal. The idea of random audits is. Don't blame the Register's slant on Karsten. 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. Now that said, the idea of the audits isn't something to just lightly brush off. 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. Should you have information on your computers with some degree of confidentiality (we would be breaking SEC regulations to just hand out some of what is on ours!), there are serious legal issues with handing over access. Even when it is legal, very few companies really want to hand over information about what is in email, private contracts, or payroll. You are a rabid Borland fan. We all know that. But please come back to rationality long enough to see that Borland is trying to hand itself the kind of powers that jack-booted thugs all over drool about. And as long as they pursue that course, they deserve to be regarded as jack-booted thugs. Regards, Ben
Post #24,359 by CRConrad 1/14/02 6:17:48 PM Reply	Not by as much as you seem to assume. 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. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,376 by ben_tilly 1/14/02 7:59:20 PM Reply	Formulated so blandly that what? What Karsten said is that Microsoft can get away with throwing its licensing weight around, and he called Borland a 3 ounce gorilla. This is an obvious reference to Microsoft being an 800 pound gorilla who can do pretty much whatever it pleases no matter what others think about it. What is part and parcel of the image is that nobody likes it when the 800 pound gorilla throws its weight around, they just aren't willing to argue with 800 pounds. The only difference between Borland and Microsoft is that people aren't scared to tell 3 ounces of mad gorilla where it can go stuff it. Now can you read this as condoning Microsoft's behaviour? It is a statement of fact, Microsoft gets away with crap. It describes how pretty accurately. Microsoft has a strong enough monopoly that they can afford (at least for a bit) to not care about consumer opinions. It doesn't say it is right. It doesn't say it is good. And then he goes and recommends that you go with free software if you can. This means what about Microsoft? (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.) Cheers, Ben
Post #24,462 by CRConrad 1/15/02 1:59:55 PM Reply	Well, if not "condoning"... 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. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,481 by kmself 1/15/02 3:32:48 PM Reply	Re: Well, if not "condoning"... 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? Not resigned. I don't use Microsoft software. I know those who do. In general, on the market, Microsoft can get away with its actions (or has historically). As Ben said, statement of fact. 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. If you're referring to my intent, both actions are recommended. 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?!? Mindshare, Christian. Mindshare. Make it clear that Borland's risking not only future sales but current base. Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again. Grow up, Christian. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #24,490 by CRConrad 1/15/02 4:49:41 PM Reply	Butt out of my words with Ben, mmmkay, K? 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. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #24,516 by ben_tilly 1/15/02 6:53:43 PM Reply	No Now take back that fucking "come back to rationality" insult before I talk to you again. I cannot be expected to take it back while I still believe it. If Borland wants to demand insanely broad audit powers, that is simply not acceptable and it is not rational to defend that action. Now hopefully this is a temporary lapse, some lawyer fucked up royally, Borland will recognize the seriousness of their error, they will back off and go back to being a good citizen. Every company has idiots, and lawyers tend to be extremely prone to that failing. But (as I said initially) as long as they pursue their current path, they deserve to be roundly criticized for it. Cheers, Ben

Welcome to IWETHEY!