Reply-To: "John Elrick" <jelr...@adelphia.net>
From: "John Elrick" <jelr...@adelphia.net>
Newsgroups: borland.public.delphi.non-technical
References: <3C6BCCA3.1FB4C6FD@borland.com> <7858.3c6bd85f.e5bdf@prospero.island.local> <3c6be21e$1_1@dnews>
Subject: Re: The no-nonsense license
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:26:44 -0500
Lines: 30
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.174.23.254
Message-ID: <3c6be543_1@dnews>
X-Trace: dnews 1013704003 216.174.23.254 (14 Feb 2002 08:26:43 -0800)
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!24.0.0.38!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!dnews

"Alan Questell" <al...@pinehurst.net> wrote in message
news:3c6be21e$1_1@dnews...
> > Thanks. The new licenses are more complicated, but in many cases, I
> > understand the need for the new complexity. My only remaining objection
is
> > the prohibition against publishing benchmarks, but I've mentioned that
in
> > another thread, so I don't need to repeat myself. (Read 5.(h) in the new
> > license.)
>
> If you want to publish a benchmark, go ahead and do it. That would never
> stand up in court any more than a copyright notice in a book saying that
the
> book could not be reviewed. Benchmarks (and reviews) fall under fair use
in
> the copyright laws.
>
> Just because a company includes something in a license doesn't mean it's
> legal.
>
> If that is in the license, then Borland should (and probably does) know
> better.

Should, yes.  And probably does...read my posting dissecting the paragraph
on ownership the way a law professor would have on a midterm.


John