|
 |
| Thu, Jan 08th | home | browse | articles | contact | chat | submit | faq | newsletter | about | stats | scoop | 03:24 UTC |
|
|
login « register « recover password « |
|
| [Article] | add comment | [Article] |
|
|
|
First, I want it to be clear that I have been a Borland customer for many years, and have used your products over competitors' offerings whenever possible. I feel that I cannot remain silent after reviewing your recent license agreements. Copyright notice: All reader-contributed material on freshmeat.net is the property and responsibility of its author; for reprint rights, please contact the author directly. I had a very unpleasant surprise when I decided to test JBuilder 5 and Kylix 2 Open Edition. Both of these products were designed for the Linux operating system. After reading the license, I immediately aborted the install procedure. Both have license provisions which I feel are both invasive and ethically and morally reprehensible. To begin, I quote your own license:
12. AUDIT. During the term of this License and for one (1) year thereafter, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, Borland or its outside auditors will have the right to enter your premises and access your records and computer systems to verify that you have paid to Borland the correct amounts owed under this License and determine whether the Products are being used in accordance with the terms of this License. You will provide reasonable assistance to Borland in connection with this provision. You agree to pay the cost of the audit if any underpayments during the period covered by the audit amount to more than five percent (5%) of the fees actually owed for that period. We are to grant you access to our work and materials for the purpose of verifying compliance with this license. In other words, we forfeit our right of privacy at our facilities or our homes -- a right which we are guaranteed under the Constitution -- simply to satisfy you that we are not cheating on a license. There will never be a circumstance under which I will allow Borland or any other greedy software company to invade my home without a warrant authorized by a court of law. In my opinion, you have no right to even ask for such a thing. Besides privacy, another concern shared by many is the protection of intellectual rights and property. What guarantees do I have that your company or your auditing personnel will not exploit time spent accessing my systems to steal, compromise, or contaminate my data security, non-disclosure agreements, intellectual rights, or patents on software I may have in development? I would say: none. Even if you promised, how could you realistically enforce it? Once something has been viewed, you can't un-view it. Your license doesn't even specify which products on which computer systems you want to view. One or all? Windows, OS/2, AS/400, or Linux? Private citizens, students, nor any company ever commissioned have any intentions of allowing a single vendor complete access to an entire network/system for one piece of software, either working in the public interest on GNU software or in the private sector. Anyone I know would not use that vendor's products rather than agree to such a compromise of security. Also, in the same license, you require us to waive our right to settle any dispute in jury fashion, and to give up our rights to class actions. Again, I quote from your license:
14.4 No Jury Trials; No Joinder. Each party hereby irrevocably waives its right to a jury trial in any legal action, suit or proceeding between the parties arising out of or relating to this License. A copy this License may be filed with the court as written consent by both parties to a bench trial. You agree that any dispute you may have against Borland cannot be joined with any dispute of any other person or entity in a lawsuit, arbitration or any other proceeding, or resolved on a classwide basis. If a number of people decide that your license is unlawful, they cannot collectively seek remedy. Are you afraid that a jury trial might be costly, and rule against you? Jury trials by definition are "trial by peers". A public trial results in many things, including bad public relations. Bench trials are commonly used when actions are to be kept confidential. I strongly question your motives on this point, especially considering Provision 12. First, we must forfeit our right to privacy, then we must give up our traditional protections and right to resolve grievances under the law. I believe you are asking too much from programmers and other users who have looked to your company for years to provide quality development software on many platforms. In creating this license, I feel you have betrayed the trust you have engendered over the past years. Where you once created "no nonsense" licenses that made me proud to be a Borland customer, you have now created a license that I must publicly protest, to inform the public community of this travesty. To do this in good conscience, I have taken the following steps:
I use C++ Builder 3 Professional as my preferred development platform for Windows, for example. If this software is retroactively licensed in this manner, I will seek a new platform. This matter has weighed heavily in my decision to purchase new Borland software. I will be frank: I never purchase or use any software with this license, or any with similar provisions from any vendor, period. I want to remain a Borland customer, so I do hope this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably. [Editor's notes: T.J. only mentions a couple of the problematic sections of the license; you can view a copy of it here. It has all the usual bizarre clauses of a closed-source use-it-on-one-machine you-buy-it-but-don't-own-it license, made more jarring by references to the GPL. The most disturbing part is that, while there are sections that only apply to certain editions, most of the license applies to all of them, including Kylix Open Edition. While it's an interesting idea to release an "Open Edition" that can only be used to create GPLed software, they're going about it in a very confusing way. Here's what I can gather:
It's free as in beer, but not as in reasonable search and seizure. I imagine these clauses were only meant to apply to the Professional and Enterprise versions (not that that excuses them), but, well, there they are. BTW, we mirrored a copy of the license ourselves because this is what you have to do to get one:
Personally, I think that's indicative of a certain need for clue of which the license is probably only one of many examples.] Author's bio: T.J. Duchene has been a programmer/consultant/system administrator professionally or otherwise for about 12 years. He's worked with many platforms, including AS/400, Solaris, Windows in its various incarnations, and Linux. During that time, he's worked for small companies, private citizens, and a couple of ISPs, and even had a stint as a software support specialist for Pine County, MN. He started working with Linux back in 1995-1996, and it has been his favorite operating system ever since. He is an avid supporter of Open Source efforts and honestly believes they are the best way to produce quality software that is affordable, with the most regard for the public. T-Shirts and Fame! We're eager to find people interested in writing articles on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an article gets a t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about. [Comments are disabled]
[»]
Such Licenses Should be Clearly Marked on Freshmeat Although Borland has gracefully backed down (and, with any luck, fired the
hapless lawyer who authored that clause in the first place) and has
promised to fix the terms of the license (has anyone seen the new license
and verified its acceptability?), I do think freshmeat and other sites
which collect pointers to software products should identify commercial
licenses which such onerous strings attached.
[»]
Borland has changed its mind Borland has said it will change the license. You can find the Slashdot coverage here. --
[»]
Borland Backs Down! Dale Fuller, the CEO of Borland, has posted an open letter to the Borland developer community admitting that their licensing language was a mistake and that it's being corrected! Hooray! Chalk up one for the good guys!
[»]
Borland License Having dealt with zillions of contracts and licenses, It is my understanding that you cannot "contract away" your rights under the constitution, regardless of the wording. If you objected, they would have to have a warrant to excercise this license, and you could receive an injunction against that based on your constitutional rights to protect your privacy, including trade secrets. BUT for those who are still nervous, do what we do - when we see such crapola in software, we simply send a certified letter to the company stating our non-acceptance of certain provisions of the license. Under Florida law, provisions of a contract can be "removed" without invalidating the entire contract(license). It's legal, and it protects you. Have yet to have anyone tell me to "return" the software, or even respond. Such letters also serve to wake Borland - and other companies - up to the fact that this is a bad idea. If they get thousands of letters saying screw-you, they might get the idea. Just for the record, Borland is not the only one sticking such crap in their EULA - I've seen similar stuff in MS license and others. Only a matter of time. All the more reason to raise hell! --
[»]
Knock Knock paranoia Because a companies license disagrees with your personal opinions it doesnt
immediately make them "greedy" as you term them. Personally, I
like the fact Borland are supporting Linux with well priced good products.
[»]
Knock Knock, bad business practice!!
[»]
Re: Knock Knock, bad business practice!!
[»]
Re: Knock Knock, bad business practice!! %
[»]
Re: Knock Knock, bad business practice!!
--
[»]
Re: Knock Knock paranoia
[»]
The open edition can only release GPL'd code, yet the license forbids it? According to the license agreement, the OPEN edition can only release GPL'd
code, indicated in section 4.1 with:
[»]
Before we get too excited... ...I work for corporate Lawyers (yea, I know, like working for the Empire on the Deathstar...). Anyway, the one thing you need to keep in mind is that a "license" is nothing more than a contract. Even if you ignore the rammifications of 'Vault vs. Quaid', basic contractual law states that if the contract is not legal, it is not binding. You cannot rewrite the Constitution out of a contract. What would be next? "I have the right to kill you if you use my software"? No. Any contract has to uphold and be written within the context of the Laws and the Constitution. Many companys have actually had the opposite happen to them. They have written a contract, only to have it overturned in court for having some minor illegal phrase. Once that happens, the contract, ALL OF THE CONTRACT, is no longer binding. And, wow, can that get ugly. That's why there are corporate lawyers specializing in this. A Judge could make a ruling to inforce the legal portions, but that would be all. And it would cost the company lots of time and money. So why do they do it to you? The biggest is to scare you. It's not illegal to scare you. It is illegal to inforce the scare. And, lets not forget that it IS illegal to steal software. I once read a great quote somewhere that goes something like "The devil can quote the Bible for his own purposes". Well, Lawyers can quote the law for their own purposes as well. That still doesn't make it legal. The only time people personnaly get in to trouble is if they steal software and get caught. Someone turns them in or whatever. Then, you would be served a legal warrant by an officer of the court. No company has the right to inspect your personnal property, period. It's illegal, plain and simple. If someone comes to your door and says " Hi, I'm from {evil software company, inc.} and I want to and have the right to inspect you boxes." You can say "Blow me" (or my favorite, "Talk to Mr. Sphinctor") and close the door in his face. (By the way, rudeness is a legal right, protected by the constitution). He would have to go to a court, serve you a summons, and then a judge would have to decide if he could. An all you would have to do is utter these words: "You honor, it's an illegal invasion of my privacy and Rights guaranteed me under the Constitution and I do not want to allow it." Now a judge has to decide whether he should ignore your civil rights in order to inforce a contract that is not only illegal, it does not have your signature or a notary signature. In case you are wondering, that would be a NO. One more point. I wouldn't worry about legal fees. If, for some insane reason, a company actually wanted to fight you legally (and you were in the right and not stealing the software), they would find themselves in a legal and PR firefight. Make no mistake, a dozen privacy rights groups would swoop in to fight this one with you (if for no other reason than to justify their own existence). That's why I do not agree with a previous link that said they thought that the supreme court would make a ruling on this. In order for the supreme court to rule, a case has to make it there, brought by one of the two parties. No company wants to waste the money or claim the rights to that negative PR nightmare. IMHO.
[»]
Re: Before we get too excited... I don't care if you work for lawyers or the president. Your statements are wrong. The reason is that over time things which may be absurd become common and standard. Even if not tried in court. If a company says we've had this eula for the last 30 years a court will take that into consideration. The time to complain about a stupid/unfair/improper/burdensome eula is now while it's still stupid/unfair/improper and burdensome. Not after it's had time to become standard.
[»]
Re: Before we get too excited... Well, I certainly agree that the time to negotiate anything like this is when it becomes apparent. If for no other reason, the inconsistencies between the GPL and Borland's own license need to be addressed. By getting it addressed, people may be able to get Borland to see the errors of their ways in terms of supporting the developer community. But you miss the point that I was making in two respects. First off, it has been addressed in the past. As far as the legal community is concerned, this is considered an uninforcable contract. Read this reference posted by another person here if you don't believe me. Software User's Rights. It's a good read and a good summary of what has been struck down already in the courts. Issues of this nature have already been examined in the courts before EULA agreements such as these could be considered "Standard". Which would bring me to my second point. You simply cannot cancel out your rights with ANY legal contract. I don't care (and neither do the courts) if it has been used for 100 years. The consititution is over 200 years and it's very explicit regarding your rights. All contracts must operate under the Law or they are invalid. There is no legal basis for saying to a judge "well, it's been around for a long time, so it must be binding." Think of how many times a criminal is released because of a minor technicality in the law. Do you think the judge said "Well, he's been in jail for 30 years, so he must be guilty"? In this case (assuming that he was actually guilty of the crime), sadly no. The whole case is thrown out, not just the minor technicality. By the way, not even the President can remove these rights from you. All he could do would be to pardon you if you had been convicted of software piracy.
[»]
Re: Before we get too excited... If all the above where true, then how would a law like the DMCA ever get
passed, or the Sony Bono's Mickey Mouse copyright changes. Just because a
law is unenforceable now, does not mean it is unenforceable in the future.
The owner of a copyright can own the copyright long after the original
author is dead! Unthinkable at one time. Now is the standard. public
contracts (eula) that are unenforcable must be forceably shown to be stupid
and embaressing to the company that makes them.
[»]
Re: Before we get too excited... Whoa! Let's not get into a discussion of the pro's and con's of the legal system. Freshmeat will have to buy a new server with alot more space if we get into that! Suffice to say that just because a law gets passed by congress does not mean that it is enforceable. Or that it will stay a law. That's for a judge to decide. There have been many laws passed that have been struck down by the courts. That's why we have checks and balances. The law isn't "owned" by anybody. Anybody, a business or a person, can take their grievances to a judge to decide. It may appear that big business owns the law, but if you read the legal rulings regarding EULAs, it's pretty apparent that they don't. Also EULA's are not public law. They are a private contract between two parties that has to follow the law. I can't stress that enough. I want to make sure that you realize that I agree that these kind of contracts should be exposed as bogus and unreasonable. I think that the major problem with them is not so much one of legality, as it is a moral issue. I, as a basically honest person, have a problem saying "yes" to a ridiculous EULA, even though I know it is not enforceable. By saying "yes" I feel that I am somehow morally bound to uphold the EULA to the best of my abilities. Well, please excuse the obvious humor in this statement, but Legal does not equal Moral. Especially with this product. You are almost breaking some portion of the EULA by just holding it in your hands! Borland has to respond to this, if for no other reason than to clarify the obvious contradictions. (By the way IANAL, but I play one at work!)
[»]
Re: Before we get too excited... Amen, that's solid stuff, and I'll attest to it.
[»]
Alternatives Borland like any other company today is not making enough money to survive. Poor companies are bound to do something to make more money. There is nothing wrong in that. If we keep using Borland software, it doesnt makeup for its losses completely but only buys more time before sinking completely. I know we are using PNG format for images after all that GIF patent issues. So arent there other products one can use instead of Borland compilers like GNU C
[»]
Re: Alternatives Borland is making plenty of money these days. Their stock has gone from the low $4.00 mark to the upper $15 mark. This is due to them making more money. Their pricing has become too high for the average developer to buy, ($1500 for a compilier!) and although I love their software and have used it since the 80's they are now JUST ANOTHER SOFTWARE COMPANY and do not deserve any brand loyalty, any longer. This opinion is based not only on their stupid eula but also on their pricing.
[»]
Re: Alternatives I agree with you on that one. Borland used to have good products, but after becoming Inprise, and whatever other change of face they've had, it's just not the same company anymore. Now big rooms full of market analysts are turning the crank on a jack-in-the-box with the word "money" painted on it in green. Boy are they in for a surprise. Borland charges way too much for their software, and with Linux on a collision course for reality, their sort of products will be just the same as something that "Bob LaBla" made in his basement in Helsinki.
[»]
Borland I agree that Borland makes great products. I've been a Borland fan for
years. Using TASM, Pascal, Tcc, Bcc32 and Delphi. All great prodcuts.
However, since they gave up Pascal (didn't fix their RTE 200) I've been
scepticle.
[»]
Unfortunate Licensing It's rather unfortunate that Borland has chosen this kind of strong wording
in their licensing. I think we all appreciate the fact that Borland is
offering a free version of their software and I think its very reasonable
that they stipulate that any software developped using the Open Edition of
Kylix must be licensed under the GPL ( I may be biased :) ). But obviously
some of the management team and legal folks at Borland are pretty paranoid
about the potential implications of giving away any version of their
product without a means of enforcing the terms of their license - so
they've included some pretty strong powers in the license itself.
[»]
Where have you been? First there was the sleazy practice of never printing version numbers on their packaging, but instead just quietly folding bugfixes into the shrinkwrap copy and only distributing patches to users who complained. Then there was the sleazy license that required additional fees to be paid if your software had a distribution of more than a certain number. When free software and shareware programmers complained (loudly) because they have no control over their distribution, Borland's reponse was along the lines of `oh, we didn't mean you guys, we just put that there to prevent our competitors (Microsoft and Lotus--anyone here even remember Quattro Pro?) from using our compiler'. Then they threw a crumb at Linux and through the power of zealotry manufactured a clean image. Oh, you don't like Borland anymore? Welcome to the party.
[»]
PR Suicide Is it just me, or is the bulk of the companies these days committing pr suicide? What, they think just because Microsoft gets away with it, everyone else can?
[»]
Not Necessarily Legal... Just because something is stated in a contract doesn't mean it's legal.
It's very possible that many of the provisions in Borland's contract are
illegal and unenforceable.
[»]
Licenses and Free Software I believe in freedom. Well, at least I believe in software freedom. Since a while I'm using only free software, and it looks like I'm doing right everyday more. I think that there are a lot of great, and free RADs, out there. And I think that Inprise (Borland, whatever) did a great move to reduce drastically their "free" users (the guys using free software, read the Linux users that want to install Kylix or JBuilder). I don't know even if such statements are legal worldwide (e.g. what kind of thing happens if i install, say, Kylix -US version accepting their license, and then sue them, being in Italy ---where I am--- the legal system totally different from the American one?).. Anyway, Ill just stick to my good ol' gcc (who needs pascal, anyway ;)
--
[»]
Cool, when will Borland invade MS? What a great way to get free access your competitors' files. Just create a
license that gives you the right access. All it takes is MS to
have/borrow/test one copy of these products and Borland and can get in and
view whatever they want. MS couldn't even fight them in court.
[»]
Re: Cool, when will Borland invade MS?
--
[»]
Borland/Inprise will suffer my wrath. I will no longer advocate their software because they have created such an abomination in their End User License Agreement. For them to even consider such agreements in their End User License Agreements, let alone write such abominations onto paper, is more than enough reason for me to not advocated their software. I now envision and understand Borland/Inprise chooses to exist alongside Microsoft as such a company that tries to make me more of a slave everyday. From the bowels of my ass, I redirect ye Methane gas towards the entities of Borland/Inprise and Microsoft and I shoose to light a match; joyfully flaming them: engulfing them in a torturous mass of fire and fartstones. Let the flaming begin! --
[»]
I don't know I don't know about legalities, I don't know about licenses, I personaly
haven't made a cent from anything I've written in Delphi.
[»]
Licensing Agreement If someone showed up at my place of business demanding access to my
computer systems without a court order. I would introduce them to my
Sysadmin and Chief Information officers Mr. Smith and Mr. Weson. ;-).
[»]
I've seen this before Check out the book "Data Analysis", third edition, by Siegmund
Brandt, published by Springer-Verlag, QA273.B86213 in your library. It
comes with a CD of some medium basic routines for analyzing data, and the
CD comes with the license agreement that reads, in part:
[»]
Borland's licences and such stuff "Hallo world" ,
--
[»]
Audit? Give me a break! It would appear that the license from the the
[»]
Re: Audit? Give me a break! % I, however, am very happy to have a product like
[»]
Thanks for the heads up I want to thank the author (linuxman@worldwebcafe.com) for taking the time to both read the license, and just as importantly, share with the rest of us (who sometimes are too busy or lazy to read thoroughly). Hat's off to you linuxman, I appreciate your effort. Certainly I am appalled at this licence, and it strikes a cord in my cyber-heart. As mentioned many times here and elsewhere, this type of legal zombification seems to be gaining momentum. For this reason, I have taken the bumpy path of Open Source. My forehead is a bit flatter (from banging it agains many hard surfaces), but I am actually productive now with Mozilla, NetBeans, XEmacs, KDE, TuxRacer and Chromium (well, the last two keep me productive after playing them). My biggest hope is that the corporate giants will go so far beyond sane measures that there will be a strong backlash, one with critical mass to wake up the general public, and rally them to action. I know it may be a dream world I live in, but it's my dream world, and it makes me smile :-).
[»]
Worst licences day by day I think that we'll living a strange process , we are experiencing greedier
and greedier companies with closer and closer licenses and at the same time
we're having more and more open source material... It's like if the
commercial world and the people were being more radical in their way the
deal with computers. The companies want to user-slaves and users just a
product.
[»]
"Licenses" are just overstimated both in USA and EU http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html: something worth reading.
[»]
Re: "Licenses" are just overstimated both in USA and EU
[»]
Devils Advocate Of course, someone has to do this, but, lets say, you wrote some commercial software, and you think that someone is distributing it illegally, well, you'd want that person hung drawn and quartered. God help us should we ever fully read Microsoft [or any other commercial vendor] licences... guess we better stop using -any- commercial software. I for one would still happily use Borland products, knowing that their licence is no worse than any other commercial vendor. --
[»]
Re: Devils Advocate Actually, I do produce commercial software. However, for each release of
each product, I very carefully release it into the warez community. Since
I've started doing this, my sales have gone UP. It's called "word of mouth"
advertising.
[»]
Re: Devils Advocate I believe my point had little to do with sales distribution/penetration, but rather, the rights of software developers/owners. :) I'll happily agree that word-of-mouth is a great sales method.. however, we'll leave that for a different discussion. --
[»]
Here's a tip for those who seek an alternative to JBuilder Checkout NetBeans. It's an IDE that has a lot of good features and it is developed under an open source license (SPL). It works under both Windows and Linux. I have used for about a month and the only thing that I personally think is missing is good support for projects. It includes Tomcat so you can run your JSP/servlets directly from the IDE.
[»]
sorry - wrong link! Sorry - I misspelled the link. Here is the right one
[»]
Borland and License Hi all,
[»]
Re: Borland and License Yes, you're quite right in that circumstance. However, if you purchase the software for home use, then you are the sole person respoinsible for who comes through your door, so the license would be binding on you. This is much more worrying to me than what happens in the office.
[»]
Re: Borland and License Depending on the circumstances, and on which country you are in, you might very well be wrong. The fact that you are not authorized by the company to commit the company to a license does not mean that a court would automatically accept that the company is not bound by a license you have signed. You could be subject to disiplinary action from the company, including being fired and sued for any loss incurred by the company as a result of your action. But if you in your dealings to Borland would reasonably seem to have the authority to enter into agreements with them, it is quite possible that a court would decide that your company indeed was bound by the license (in which case you would of course be in deep shit if that cause your company to lose money).
[»]
Re: Borland and License
[»]
Re: Borland and License Let us see, my 12 year old neighbor installed the software. Do you think that any minor can legally agree to any contract? Can you prove that I really installed it? Most companies have policy manuals that prohibit all but certain designated individuals from entering into contracts involving the company. Those policy manuals specifically disavow any other agreements (like the "i agree" buttons on software, or "if the janitor signed for the package, then you agree" arguments). Let the lawyers fight amongst themselves. Didn't Borland have this kind of screw up in their licensing years ago when they prohibited developers from using their tools to write database applications? The one that they publically backed down from?
[»]
Bad Time to Lost Customers
[»]
Re: Bad Time to Lost Customers
[»]
Re: Bad Time to Lost Customers When the Borland Gestapo calls to tell you they're coming over for the audit, be sure to remind them to bring the court order.
[»]
I know what software I won't be using Jesus. They put in a clause where they can come into your home? Are they
insane? This is a joke, right?
[»]
The unfortunate part... IANAL, but my understanding is that the Constitution was a contract between
the people and the government....businesses weren't a part of the contract.
When was the last time you heard any business being struck down because
they were doing something unconstitutional? I agree with you, this is
dispicable. I can't think of anything new to say that probably hasn't been
said by many slashdot and other tech forum posters before. I think by now
we all know it in our hearts that these are dark times and this
"digital revolution" is being squashed into "digital
oppression / totalitarianism"
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... I've had it recited to me often, that there are a fair number of Constitutionally guarunteed rights that you can't waive no matter how hard you try. Some of this comes to mind. Can anyone verify/deny? That said, fuck you Borland. That was some stupid shit you tried to pull. --
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... So Borland have decided to add this for some amusement, there team of super laws got bored one day - desperate to break your door down and look at your world beating source code ? What is so wrong with a company wanting to protect its revenue streams (the thing that pays the staff wages) ? paranoia aside, realistically this is to give them the leverage to come down heavy on cheating companies not the public on mass. Students will copy and share software of course, that hardly the issue. If they feel the need to go to these percieved lengths then clearly small company piracy is a problem which they want to address. Constitution ? Il use common sense thanks...
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... ... is that I'm old enough to remember when Borland had, for a corporate,
an excellent licensing scheme. Sorry Borland; you used to be a good company. Now you're probably never to be re-installed here.
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... They called that license the "No Nonsense License". Are we to assume that the new license is "The Nonsense Contract"? Just a thought. I use the principles of Borland's old license in my own software. I guess I can no longer advocate them by name.
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part...
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... RULE NUMBER ONE. When they tell you the fine print doesn't matter.
The best defense is a good offense. How do you like this idea. Borland customers should send to Borland a signed statement of their conditions of purchase. . It would say that if Borland or its agents or dealers provide the listed company or people software in return for money, Borland will have agreed to the terms listed in the notice. It should say that the transfer of funds to Borland, or its agents constitutes the sale of goods. Notice I did not say lease. It would say the they buyer expressly rejects the language in the shrink wrapped agreement. It should state that if Borland, their agents or dealers take your money for a copy of software, they were by that act agreeing to the listed terms of conditions under which you offer funds to Borland or its vendors. It should say that Borlands sole remedy under the agreement is to exercise their right not to enter into a transaction with the signer. It has a lot more legal meaning than a shrink wrap introduced after the sale beca use this is delivered to the vendor before the sale. The way to close this door is to organize a few companies to do it jointly in front of a lot of media. With lots of press clippings it would be hard for Borland to claim they never got the notice or were unaware of it. Terms presented before a sale, are binding on a consumated sale. Terms revealed after money has changed hands are a lot less valid. Borland lawyers and management think they are playing a one sided game. They may very well learn they are not. General Motors uses such an agreement. They notify all vendors of their conditions before they buy from them. I have seen that won many times. The notice says that the GM terms are the only terms of the sale. That unless the GM board of directors approve and the President signs a written contract voiding the pre sale conditions they are in effect. It says GM only agrees to the terms of its pre purchase notice of conditions. If it works for them and it will work for Borland customers. Customers need to fight back. It is one thing to say after the sale ... by the way here are the conditions. If you don't like it send it back . It is quite another to say here are my conditions before the sale, if you sell to me you have agreed to my conditions.. With a pre sale notification agreement, buyers would once again have the upper hand. --
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... Wow... now there's a response worth serious consideration. You are truly on to something here. The POWER software buyer's *could* have over commercial software firms (like M$, Borland,...) is quite significant. Could you imagine the possibilities of having a Delphi (or Kylix, etc) Buyer's Consortium of sorts, where 90% of all Borland's Delphi target-market were the developers that belonged to this consortium, and this group would set the rules under which its members would purchase Delphi from Borland. It takes a GROUP effort, but this can be done! Perhaps this is the best way to reign in these companies... form purchasing groups that would lay down the terms under which they will agree to buy, vs. the terms which the big s/w firms try to push down our throats. This is really worth pursuing. What could these firms do other than work out "deals" with the consortiums to make the licenses more developer friendly. It's sorta like having your s/w developer market go on-strike if they don't get what they want. It's worked for the labor unions and such. And, as demonstrated above, purchasing power (like GM uses) carries a LOT of weight. Anybody else think this can be made a reality? I'll agree to only buy through such a group if we can get enough people on board! PS: One note... I *really* love Delphi. I've used it for a long time and it rocks! I don't want to have to switch to lesser products (like VB) unless I must :) --
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part... http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/purchase.agreement.html
[»]
Re: The unfortunate part...
|
|
