[lug] On Borland's new EULA

[rm at fabula.de]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:23:24AM -0700, BOF wrote:
> [...]
>    http://freshmeat.net/.misc/borland-license.txt
> 
> So much for using Borland products anymore.


And when they disapear from the Linux market the media will
probably once again shout "see, you can't make money with 
free software ..." :-/

There whole attitude was strange from the beginning. I recall reading
tow interviews with a Borland Developer and the director of their 
developers group about Kylix and Linux in german magazines.
The gist of it: GCC is a bad compiler (since they had problems using
it) and Linux needs a lot of fix-up (since some system calls weren't
working as they expected - read: the same as they do under Windows).
Besides the fact that this is the best way to p**s off the existing
developer community - who did they think are their target market?
Existing Linux developers working in C(++/obj)? Or rather MS programmers
looking for a new platform and too scared to learn a new language?
And will those people really risk the move if youi go arround and
complain about Linux? 

> 
> So much for blithly clicking "Accept" to EULA's.
> 
> And no wonder so many people choose to lie about the personal 
> information that they list when downloading software. The nice thing 
> about a computer is that it accepts without question answers like 
> "Hillary Bush-Gates, 1601 White House Road, New York, TX 11111, phone 
> 911/666-6666".

Yes, i heard that entering 'postmaster at 127.0.0.1' is often done
on sites that require a valid email address. And peole even check the
'yes, send me SPAM' buttons ...

> Not, of course, that I, a paragon of virture, would ever do anything 
> remotely like this --- or advocate that anyone else do it.

Who would advocate such missbehaviour?

 Ralf ;-)

> BOF
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug