Board index » cppbuilder » bcb licence questions

bcb licence questions


2005-10-05 05:54:53 AM
cppbuilder80
I'm slightly concerned about something in the BCB licence agreement, and
I'd really appeciate if someone could clarify this:
In one place it says:
<quote>
Regardless of any modifications which you make and regardless of how you
might compile, link, and/or package your programs, under no circumstances
may the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables,
and/or other files of the Software (including any portions thereof) be used
for developing programs by anyone other than you. Only you as the licensed
user (or the Named User for your entity) have the right to use the
libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, or other
files of the Software (or any portions thereof) for developing programs
created with the Software.
</quote>
And in another place:
<quote>
regardless of any modifications which you make and regardless of how you
might compile, link, or package your programs, the libraries (including
runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the
Software (including any portions thereof) may not be used in programs
created by your end users (i.e., users of your programs) and may not be
further redistributed by your end users;
</quote>
Does this mean that if I compile a library or IDE with BCB, that I'm not
allowed to redistribute either the library or the IDE because that would be
allowing other people to use the "libraries (including runtime libraries),
code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the Software (including any
portions thereof)" ?
Jonathan
 
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Jonathan Benedicto wrote:
Quote
Does this mean that if I compile a library or IDE with BCB, that I'm
not allowed to redistribute either the library or the IDE because
that would be allowing other people to use the "libraries (including
runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the
Software (including any portions thereof)" ?

Jonathan
I{*word*7}but I think this is trying to prevent people making direct use of
the libraries. As long as execution enters those libraries entirely
from your own code behind the scenes as it were I don't think they
mind. They probably just don't want you helping other developers to
make use of Borland's libraries. If you were to write a library that
wrapped the VCL and made it available to third parties I imagine that
would be a violation.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Re:bcb licence questions

"Andrue Cope [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I{*word*7}but I think this is trying to prevent people making direct use of
the libraries. As long as execution enters those libraries entirely
from your own code behind the scenes as it were I don't think they
mind. They probably just don't want you helping other developers to
make use of Borland's libraries. If you were to write a library that
wrapped the VCL and made it available to third parties I imagine that
would be a violation.
Thank you for this info. I just didn't want to be involved in legal
problems if I built an IDE and distributed the binaries compiled using the
BCB compiler.
Jonathan
 

{smallsort}

Re:bcb licence questions

"Jonathan Benedicto" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I'm slightly concerned about something in the BCB licence agreement,
and I'd really appeciate if someone could clarify this:

<snip anti-competition lawyer jargon>
Borland doesn't want you to use their intellectual property to create
a product that would compete with them.
--
Bruce
 

Re:bcb licence questions

" Bruce Salzman" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Borland doesn't want you to use their intellectual property to create a
product that would compete with them.
This is the problem. Now where do I turn for a compiler ? I bought BCB4,
and gcc is slow. Maybe DigitalMars.
Jonathan
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Jonathan Benedicto wrote:
Quote
Thank you for this info. I just didn't want to be involved in legal
problems if I built an IDE and distributed the binaries compiled
using the BCB compiler.
Well that's only my take on it. It's based on the assumption that
Borland are trying to be reasonable :)
The alternative interpretation pretty much rules out selling anything
other than standalone applications. Given the power of some automation
tools (several have their own programming language) you could argue
that it would rule out distributing any executable code :)
I'll try and get a more definitive answer for you just in case.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Re:bcb licence questions

"Jonathan Benedicto" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
This is the problem. Now where do I turn for a compiler ? I bought BCB4,
and gcc is slow. Maybe DigitalMars.
For building an IDE or library though. I still very much like and use BCB
for RAD.
Jonathan
 

Re:bcb licence questions

"Andrue Cope [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I'll try and get a more definitive answer for you just in case.
Thank you very much.
Jonathan
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Jonathan Benedicto wrote:
Quote
I'm slightly concerned about something in the BCB licence agreement, and
I'd really appeciate if someone could clarify this:

In one place it says:
<quote>
under no circumstances
may the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables,
and/or other files of the Software (including any portions thereof) be used
for developing programs by anyone other than you.
... the libraries (including
runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the
Software (including any portions thereof) may not be used in programs
created by your end users
</quote>

Does this mean that if I compile a library or IDE with BCB, that I'm not
allowed to redistribute either the library or the IDE because that would be
allowing other people to use the "libraries (including runtime libraries),
code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the Software (including any
portions thereof)" ?
I am not a legal expert, but I think your interpretation is incorrect.
The phrase 'of the Software' has important legal meaning. The Software,
with a capital 'S' refers to BCB. It does not refer to software that you
create. The first paragraph of the EULA probably defines Software to be
BCB. The lawyers could have used BCB instead of the 'Software' when
drafting this thing, but that would take time and prevent them from
reusing the same legal template across products.
You can create your own libraries, but they are your libraries. They are
not part 'of the Software'. They are not part of BCB and therefore these
two provisions don't apply.
Disclaimer: This legal advice is worth every penny that you paid for it.
H^2
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Jonathan Benedicto wrote:
Quote
I'm slightly concerned about something in the BCB licence agreement, and
I'd really appeciate if someone could clarify this:

In one place it says:
<quote>
Regardless of any modifications which you make and regardless of how you
might compile, link, and/or package your programs, under no circumstances
may the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables,
and/or other files of the Software (including any portions thereof) be
used
for developing programs by anyone other than you. Only you as the
licensed user (or the Named User for your entity) have the right to use
the libraries (including runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, or
other files of the Software (or any portions thereof) for developing
programs created with the Software.
</quote>

And in another place:
<quote>
regardless of any modifications which you make and regardless of how you
might compile, link, or package your programs, the libraries (including
runtime libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the
Software (including any portions thereof) may not be used in programs
created by your end users (i.e., users of your programs) and may not be
further redistributed by your end users;
</quote>

Does this mean that if I compile a library or IDE with BCB, that I'm not
allowed to redistribute either the library or the IDE because that would
be allowing other people to use the "libraries (including runtime
libraries), code, Redistributables, and/or other files of the Software
(including any portions thereof)" ?

Jonathan
I puzzled over this text a year or two ago. I think the main issue for
anyone wanting to distribute software built with C++ Builder is that a user
will only be able to run the program if he also has certain Borland
'Redistributables' such as rtl60.bpl and vcl60.bpl.
The file deploy.txt that came with my copy of C++ Builder 6 lists all the
Redistributables, and says:-
QUOTE
In accordance with the General Terms That Apply to Compiled Programs and
Redistributables, you may redistribute Borland-supplied runtime packages
only for the purpose of executing application programs created with
C++Builder.
UNQUOTE
I think what Borland are trying to say is that its OK to distribute
Redistributables like rtl60.bpl to your users along with your program, but
that your users must not use them for any other purpose than running your
program. For example, if they are building their own program that requires
the Redistributables in order to run, then they should buy their own copy
of BCB and use the Redistributables from that to build and deploy their
program.
I'm not sure how practical this really is. Firstly, I doubt whether the
Redistributables would be much use to many developers without the rest of
BCB. Secondly, I can't see how anyone distributing a program to users can
be expected to know or control what the end users do with the Borland
Redistributables.
My best shot at finding a way through this would be to suggest that you
include some text along the following lines in the licence you distribute
with your software (where 'TheProgram' is the name of the program you have
written):-
-----
The following files distributed with TheProgram are 'Redistributables':-
* rtl60.bpl
* vcl60.bpl
These are Borland files, and may be installed and executed, without
modification, solely for the purpose of running TheProgram.
-------
Hope this helps.
--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
www.simsoup.info
 

Re:bcb licence questions

"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I am not a legal expert, but I think your interpretation is incorrect.
The phrase 'of the Software' has important legal meaning. The Software,
with a capital 'S' refers to BCB. It does not refer to software that you
create. The first paragraph of the EULA probably defines Software to be
BCB. The lawyers could have used BCB instead of the 'Software' when
drafting this thing, but that would take time and prevent them from
reusing the same legal template across products.
What I was concerned about, is that a binary compiled using BCB, will
include, for example, the Borland RTL, and so isn't the RTL included in
"the Software" ?
Quote
Disclaimer: This legal advice is worth every penny that you paid for it.
Thank you for giving it anyway.
Jonathan
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Jonathan Benedicto < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
" Bruce Salzman" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:4343e517$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Borland doesn't want you to use their intellectual property to create a
>product that would compete with them.

This is the problem. Now where do I turn for a compiler ? I bought BCB4,
and gcc is slow. Maybe DigitalMars.
The VC tookit?
Quote
Jonathan
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving"
Terry Pratchett
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Quote
What I was concerned about, is that a binary compiled using BCB, will
include, for example, the Borland RTL, and so isn't the RTL included in
"the Software" ?
Yes, the RTL is part of the Software, but in reference to the two
clauses you posted, it would be nearly impossible for your customers to
extract the RTL from your binaries and compile their own apps. Hence, I
think you are in compliance.
The first clause said that only you can develop programs using the
Borland RTL. The second clause says that Borland Software that you
redistribute cannot be used in programs created by your customers. I
don't see how either of these could be violated by shipping an EXE that
was linked with Borland's RTL.
FWIW, I'm not real thrilled with the second clause you posted. How can
you be held responsible for what your customers do with the
redistributables that you deploy? My personal opinion is that if you
simply use BCB to create programs and libraries, you are in compliance.
The burden of proof to the contrary is on Borland. Let them come and get
you if they think you are violating the agreement.
H^2
 

Re:bcb licence questions

Harold Howe [TeamB] wrote:
Quote

>What I was concerned about, is that a binary compiled using BCB, will
>include, for example, the Borland RTL, and so isn't the RTL included in
>"the Software" ?

Yes, the RTL is part of the Software, but in reference to the two
clauses you posted, it would be nearly impossible for your customers to
extract the RTL from your binaries and compile their own apps. Hence, I
think you are in compliance.

The first clause said that only you can develop programs using the
Borland RTL. The second clause says that Borland Software that you
redistribute cannot be used in programs created by your customers. I
don't see how either of these could be violated by shipping an EXE that
was linked with Borland's RTL.

FWIW, I'm not real thrilled with the second clause you posted. How can
you be held responsible for what your customers do with the
redistributables that you deploy?
The licence implies that developers who use BCB are responsible for what
their end users do with the redistributables. I'm not at all happy with it
either, but that is what it amounts to.
Quote
My personal opinion is that if you
simply use BCB to create programs and libraries, you are in compliance.
The burden of proof to the contrary is on Borland. Let them come and get
you if they think you are violating the agreement.
Being risk averse, my preference would be to reduce the likelihood of any
trouble by making the restrictions on the redistributables clear in the
licence text with any software I distributed. That way I would be able to
demonstrate that I had done everything reasonably possible to stop users
'misusing' the redistributables.
--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
www.simsoup.info
 

Re:bcb licence questions

"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
The VC tookit?
AFAIK, they don't allow distribution of binaries created by it.
I was thinking of open-source anyway, and theat means I can use BCB, VC
toolkit. But for distribution of binaries it'll probably have to be DM.
Jonathan