dclusr trick no longer works with the Turbo Explorers
Thomas Mueller
apparently Borland / DevCo / DTG did not like the trick for loading
components into the Turbo Explorer versions using the dclusr package.
I just installed a freshly downloaded version and tried it. I got the error
it gives you for any 3rd party package: "This version is not licensed to
load third-party components or ide addins."
dll based wizards still work, though, I tried it with GExperts and Delphi
Speed Up 1.99b.
Interestingly my own trick for loading 3rd party libraries (No I am still
not going to tell you) still works. I tried it with the included Indy
packages and dclrxlib (That was just at hand, I haven't tried anything else
but I assume other packages will also work).
BUT: It does not load dclusr. That's rather strange.
Apparently they have silently changed the download. A comparison of the
installers also says they are different.
So, does that mean the original download is now illegal? Or will CDs with it
it become the new top seller? ;-)
MfG
twm
Tom van der Vlugt
Thomas Mueller <nos...@dummzeuch.de> wrote:
>So, does that mean the original download is now illegal? Or >will CDs with it it become the new top seller? ;-)
Thomas,
Although I've tested that dclusr.dpk, I've quickly abandoned
it too. I tested it for trial purposes. If I want more, I'll
upgrade to the Professional Edition.
Borland also should place a patch download for each personality
for those who have already the first download. They also should
modify the date of the downloadable files. Downloading 300 Mb
again is completely insane!
I'be made a blog about using 3rd party components. Not using in
design-time but in run-time. And this is perfectly legal! :-)
You can find the blog: http://thomasvlugt.blogspot.com/
After reading the first text you can click on comments which
describes to use a third-party component at runtime, legally!!
What do you think about my first text? I find that Borland
should relax the license somewhat whilst completely controlling
what is allowed and what isn't.
Tom
Relaxin
>
> I'be made a blog about using 3rd party components. Not using in
> design-time but in run-time. And this is perfectly legal! :-)
>
> You can find the blog: http://thomasvlugt.blogspot.com/
>
> After reading the first text you can click on comments which
> describes to use a third-party component at runtime, legally!!
>
> What do you think about my first text? I find that Borland
> should relax the license somewhat whilst completely controlling
> what is allowed and what isn't.
>
The product is FREE, but that is never enough for some people...they want if
free PLUS something else, anything other than that is unacceptable!
And it's people like you that will be the first to complain "why does DevCo
charge so much","how come the product is so buggy".
DevCo needs to make MONEY!!
They can't do that if they are spending time, money and resources on a
product that they are giving away for FREE!
Since some type of hack is available to allow 3rd party components, DevCo
should work on closing all of the gaps, and just let Explorer flourish on
it's own and concentrate on making money, by creating great, bug free
software that we are willing to PAY for!
jay
says...
> Hi,
>
> apparently Borland / DevCo / DTG did not like the trick for loading
> components into the Turbo Explorer versions using the dclusr package.
>
> I just installed a freshly downloaded version and tried it. I got the error
> it gives you for any 3rd party package: "This version is not licensed to
> load third-party components or ide addins."
>
> dll based wizards still work, though, I tried it with GExperts and Delphi
> Speed Up 1.99b.
>
> Interestingly my own trick for loading 3rd party libraries (No I am still
> not going to tell you) still works. I tried it with the included Indy
> packages and dclrxlib (That was just at hand, I haven't tried anything else
> but I assume other packages will also work).
> BUT: It does not load dclusr. That's rather strange.
>
> Apparently they have silently changed the download. A comparison of the
> installers also says they are different.
I noticed this with my download yesterday, the install files are now
dated 7-Sep-06. I presumed they have disabled the dclusr trick...
Oliver Townshend
Agreed.
Oliver Townshend
Staiger
> should work on closing all of the gaps, and just let Explorer flourish on
> it's own and concentrate on making money, by creating great, bug free
> software that we are willing to PAY for!
Hear, hear!
Thack
damian marquez
news:450c...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> dll based wizards still work, though, I tried it with GExperts and Delphi
> Speed Up 1.99b.
GExperts work?? Oh that´s the only real thing I miss in D2006... Can´t live
without CTRL-G... Anybody can? :)
"tom van der vlugt"t.vlugt!quicknet.nl
"Relaxin" <m...@yourhouse.com> wrote:
>The product is FREE, but that is never enough for some
>people...they want if free PLUS something else, anything
>other than that is unacceptable!
I only want to make a distinction between a possible commercial
user and an open-source author. The latter DOESN'T make money
with their software AND Borland still controlls what's allowed
or isn't. And I also DON'T advocate illegal usages or cracks!
I only advocate LEGAL usage of the product.
>And it's people like you that will be the first to >complain "why does DevCo charge so much","how come the
>product is so buggy". DevCo needs to make MONEY!!
This tends to be a flame. Don't do this again, please. I
didn't complain like that. I only gave a suggestion about a
modified license to prevent hacking and cracking so that DEVCO
better makes money.
Robert Wachtel
damian marquez wrote:
> GExperts work?? Oh that愀 the only real thing I miss in D2006... [...]
??? Why? It works in D2006 as well.
Robert
Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]
> So, does that mean the original download is now illegal?
I doubt it is illegal, but you'd have to check if it is legal for you to
distribute it I suppose.
Frans van Daalen
<Tom van der Vlugt t.vlugt!quicknet.nl> wrote in message
news:450cfd6d$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
>
> I only want to make a distinction between a possible commercial
> user and an open-source author. The latter DOESN'T make money
Don't think that statement is right
Thomas Mueller
Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software] wrote:
> I hope you wrote to someone to explain your work around.
To whom? I have offered Borland / Devco / DTG to give them the source code,
but haven't heard from them. So I guess they already know how it is done
and don't need my help. Nobody else will get it from me.
>> So, does that mean the original download is now illegal?
> I doubt it is illegal, but you'd have to check if it is legal for you to
> distribute it I suppose.
I'm not going to distribute it, so there is no need for me to check.
MfG
twm
Tom van der Vlugt
Tom van der Vlugt wrote:
>>The latter DOESN'T make money with their software ....
"Frans van Daalen" <Acc...@is.invalid> wrote:
>Don't think that statement is right
I mean: The latter **isn't allowed** to make money with
this possible license! With purchasing a professional license
this condition is lifted!
Thomas Mueller
I think what you propose is just too complex. IMHO Borland / DevCo / DTG did
it right they way they did: Allow any type of development to be done with
the Turbo Explorer editions but restrict them in the way they work with 3rd
party components. I would have liked that to be spelled out in the license,
though. The license of the original installer (haven't checked the new one)
didn't mention these restrictions at all.
MfG
twm
Brian Twinings
> So, does that mean the original download is now illegal? Or will CDs
> with it it become the new top seller? ;-)
No need to keep the whole original download. The difference is
DCLUSR.RES :)
Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]
>> distribute it I suppose.
>
> I'm not going to distribute it, so there is no need for me to check.
It was the "non specific you" rather than the "personal you". IE, "someone
would" rather than "*you* would" :-)
Tom van der Vlugt
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Mueller <nos...@dummzeuch.de> wrote:
>I think what you propose is just too complex. IMHO Borland / DevCo / DTG did
>it right they way they did: Allow any type of development to be done with
>the Turbo Explorer editions but restrict them in the way they work with 3rd
>party components. I would have liked that to be spelled out in the license,
>though. The license of the original installer (haven't checked the new one)
>didn't mention these restrictions at all.
I can live with that, but is it legal to use 3rd party
components created at **runtime**? This means that the
component palette get left untouched and that my newly used
components are created at runtime. Also the *.dfm files only
get touched by the components installed by Borland.
Okay I do create a component package just for the convenience
of using the package as a kind of DLL, but it's okay from now
that I can't use it design-time.
You are right that Borland should make a statement in the
license regarding 3rd party components.
Mostly my new components are non-visual and creating them at
runtime is as easy as design-time.
If I want more, I CAN decide to puchase an upgrade. :-)
With regards from
Tom van der Vlugt
Thomas Mueller
Brian Twinings wrote:
Yes, they are different, but copying the original one doesn't work either.
(Yes, I might have too much time on my hands at the moment ;-) but it's
weekend after all...)
MfG
twm
damian marquez
"Robert Wachtel" <RWac...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:450d0595$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> GExperts work?? Oh that´s the only real thing I miss in D2006... [...]
>
> ??? Why? It works in D2006 as well.
I meant in Turbo Delphi Explorer, sorry. And it does work here too! I just
installed it. That and FastMM4
I´m happy now!
Marc Rohloff [TeamB]
> I can live with that, but is it legal to use 3rd party
> components created at **runtime**? This means that the
> component palette get left untouched and that my newly used
> components are created at runtime. Also the *.dfm files only
> get touched by the components installed by Borland.
Yes you can create third-party components or controls at runtime.
--
Marc Rohloff [TeamB]
marc rohloff -at- myrealbox -dot- com
damian marquez
"Relaxin" <m...@yourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:450c7851$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> The product is FREE, but that is never enough for some people...they want
> if free PLUS something else, anything other than that is unacceptable!
I think you´re right... it´s never enough.
But indeed the explorers are MORE than a great gift. Absolutely usable and
generous product, without
commercial development limitations and permits code declarations of 3rdparty
stuff.
BTW, I used the dclusr100 stuff and it worked but some reason it stopped
working today. My Delphi
got scared it seems lol :)
damian marquez
>
> apparently Borland / DevCo / DTG did not like the trick for loading
> components into the Turbo Explorer versions using the dclusr package.
I was loading my own dbgrid descendant (a little fix by the way... it´s just
a habit I guess...) and all of a sudden
dclusr(100) refuses to work... It didn´t load once, so I went to try to fix
it, reloaded the .dpk from the CD....
No way. It compiles and installs (it seems but does not) and when going to
packages it does not appear... if I
enter manually in the registry it won´t load and will show an error saying
"operation aborted"...
Very very strange..
Jolyon Smith
> But indeed the explorers are MORE than a great gift. Absolutely usable and
> generous product, without
> commercial development limitations
Under the terms of the license (which you will note explicitly /cannot/
be overridden by anything other than "Program Notes" - so a FAQ, blog or
ng post won't do) Explorers are evaluation licenses (time limited) and
therefore preclude use for commercial purposes (during the evaluation
period, i.e. the next 100 years).
If Borland really didn't mean them to be evaluation licenses you should
get a revised license.txt or at the very least a letter of assurance
from Borland's legal dept that you will not be pursued for breaching
this aspect of your license agreement.
Of course, if you upgrade to Pro it becomes irrelevant as the Turbo Pros
are not time limited and so are clearly a Named User license, and
therefore not subject to the restrictions imposed on Evaluation
licenses.
And before anyone accuses me of spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt...
If there's no Doubt about the _intended_ license type of a Turbo
Explorer license then let's have a license agreement that is not
Uncertain in it's definitions, then we all need have no Fear.
You can't spread something that doesn't exist.
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
Craig
>> But indeed the explorers are MORE than a great gift. Absolutely usable and
>> generous product, without
>> commercial development limitations
>
I am pretty sure they are usable for commercial purposes.
Tom van der Vlugt
"Marc Rohloff [TeamB]" <"on request"> wrote:
>Yes you can create third-party components or controls at >runtime.
Marc,
Thank you for your response. Now I'm happy, since what I do is
legal.
Tom
Relaxin
"Craig" <cra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:450e2a86$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
I think that's what he said...
Arthur Hoornweg
> The license works fine just the way it is.
>
> The product is FREE, but that is never enough for some people...they want if
> free PLUS something else, anything other than that is unacceptable!
True enough. But I can understand the challenge of it. After all,
programming is a constant challenge to one's creativity
and intelligence.
Borland should make this kind of thing 100% waterproof.
Just hardwire the allowed packages along with their checksums in
the IDE. If they don't, details will pretty soon leak out how to circumvent
the limitations. Then it's only a matter of days until a hacker tool can be
downloaded from the internet that automates these things.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(In order to reply per e-mail, please just remove the ".net"
from my e-mail address. Leave the rest of the address intact
including the "antispam" part. I had to take this measure to
counteract unsollicited mail.)
David Clegg
> I think that's what he said...
No, I don't think it is.
Jolyon has decided to interpret the Explorer license, and the fact that
it gets registered with a key which expires in about 100 years, to mean
that it is an evaluation version, and therefore means it cannot be used
for commercial use. This is despite the fact that many Borlanders have
commented publically that there are absolutely no commercial
restrictions whatsoever on the Explorer editions, and the fact that the
License Manager has the following entries :-
Non-commercial use only --- No
Trial license --- false
Sure, I agree that license agreements are always open to some level of
interpretion, but IMHO Jolyon is going out of his way to interpret the
Explorer ones to mean that they are evaluation versions, despite any
indication to the contrary.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"You never know when an old calendar might come in handy! Sure, it's
not 1985 right now, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?" - Homer
Simpson
Yannis
> Just hardwire the allowed packages along with their checksums in
> the IDE. If they don't, details will pretty soon leak out how to
> circumvent the limitations. Then it's only a matter of days until a
> hacker tool can be downloaded from the internet that automates these
> things.
While hardwiring them in the tool with checksums will be helpfull how?
It is as easy to patch the exe as it is any other method to circumvent
the limitations. It requires more than hardwiring and I rather see the
creative powers of devco put in to more usefull work than trying to
lock a free a version which can always be cripled by many ways,
for example do not share any updates for the free versions make them
available a bit later (like 6 months behind) etc which in my opinion
is a far better way to create the need fro the payware versions than
any effort to better lock down the releases.
Regards
Yannis.
Tom van der Vlugt
To allow the Explorer versions to be used commercially AND to
be the Explorer versions an evaluation version seems to be
contradicting. Borland/Devco should fix this. This looks pretty
confusing.
Dennis Passmore
will find the following text.
"In order to evaluate the Product,
you may install the Product, as outlined below, on a temporary basis for trial,
evaluation, non-commercial purposes only (the "Evaluation Period"). The Evaluation
Period is limited to the greater of the period of time specified to you by Borland
or thirty (30) days from the date the Product is installed. At the end of the
Evaluation Period your license to use the Product expires. During the Evaluation
Period, Borland grants you the personal, nonexclusive, nontransferable and limited
license to use the Product solely for evaluation purposes. THE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN
A TIME-OUT FEATURE THAT DISABLES ITS OPERATION AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE EVALUATION
PERIOD. APPLICATIONS THAT YOU CREATE DURING THE EVALUATION PERIOD MAY REQUIRE THE
PRODUCT OR PORTIONS OF THE PRODUCT IN ORDER TO RUN. UPON EXPIRATION OF THE EVALUATION
PERIOD, THOSE APPLICATIONS MAY NO LONGER RUN.
"
David Clegg
> If you read the License.txt file included with the Explorers you
> will find the following text.
You will also find
"The types of licenses you may acquire are an Evaluation License and a
Named User License, all defined in this Section 2 of this License
Agreement. Unless your License Certificate identifies your acquisition
of another license type, you have acquired a Named User License."
Not only does the License Manager not show anywhere that the license is
an evaluation one, but it also states that the license is not a Trial
license. I also do not see anywhere in license.txt where it explicitly
states that having a license that expires after a fixed date equates to
an Evaluation license being installed. It may be interpreted that way,
but having Borland publically stating that the Explorer version is not
evaluation software and can be used for commercial applications, and a
license that says it is not a trial license, may also be interpreted as
meaning that the Explorer license is not an evaluation one.
Taking all that into consideration I still maintain that it is
clutching at straws to claim that the Explorer licensing indicates that
it is licensed for evaluation purposes only.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Hey, we didn't have a message on our answering machine when we left.
How very odd." - Homer Simpson
Chris Burrows
news:xn0erdpi...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> Taking all that into consideration I still maintain that it is
> clutching at straws to claim that the Explorer licensing indicates that
> it is licensed for evaluation purposes only.
>
I'd agree with you if 'common sense' were to be applied. However, that is
often not the case where lawyers are concerned. At the very least, the
situation is contradictory and confusing and the wording of the license
needs clarification.
It would help if the time limit was removed altogether - particularly if it
was just an expedient shortcut for technical reasons to get the system
rushed out. However, I am led to wonder if its inclusion was a deliberate
legalistic action - something similar to the reasoning behind a 99-year
lease perhaps?
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp
I.P. Nichols
> Dennis Passmore wrote:
>
>> If you read the License.txt file included with the Explorers you
>> will find the following text.
>
> You will also find
One thing for sure, the whole concept of the old sensible license agreement
has been upended and trounced. ;-)
Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)
> I am pretty sure they are usable for commercial purposes.
They are -- pay no attention to comments that say otherwise.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - Borland DTG
http://blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
Thomas Mueller
Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
> Borland should make this kind of thing 100% waterproof.
Why? People who want to, will always get around any limitation. If Borland
limits the Turbo Explorers too much for their taste, they will get a
cracked version of BDS. Also, as I understand it, the Explorer editions are
meant to be converted in Pro editions by just installing a new license.
> Just hardwire the allowed packages along with their checksums in
> the IDE. If they don't, details will pretty soon leak out how to
> circumvent the limitations. Then it's only a matter of days until a hacker
> tool can be downloaded from the internet that automates these things.
So what? Nothing new. You could always download cracked BDS versions from
somewhere.
MfG
twm
Thomas Mueller
damian marquez wrote:
> I was loading my own dbgrid descendant (a little fix by the way... it´s
> just a habit I guess...) and all of a sudden
> dclusr(100) refuses to work...
You mean you have not installed the new Turbo Explorer version but the one
you were using now also refuses to load the package? That's odd,
particularly since my old installation still works.
MfG
twm
Ingvar Nilsen
> You could always download cracked BDS versions
> from somewhere.
"You" in this case is not a reputable development department in
reputable software house.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
http://www.ingvarius.com
Jolyon Smith
(Borland/DTG) says...
> Craig wrote:
>
> > I am pretty sure they are usable for commercial purposes.
>
> They are -- pay no attention to comments that say otherwise.
From the horses mouth: Pay no attention to the license agreement.
How much do you pay your lawyers Nick? If we're just supposed to ignore
the things they draw up for you perhaps you could save some $$$'s on the
legal department and invest them in QA instead?
--
Jolyon Smith
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Not only does the License Manager not show anywhere that the license is
> an evaluation one, but it also states that the license is not a Trial
> license.
"Trial License" is not defined in the License Agreement, which only
recognises (and defines) 2 types of license: Evaluation and Named User.
It is only the definition of an Evaluation License that makes ANY
reference to any form of time limited license.
> I also do not see anywhere in license.txt where it explicitly
> states that having a license that expires after a fixed date equates to
> an Evaluation license being installed.
It explicitly states, in the definition of an Evaluation License:
"In order to evaluate the Product, you may install the Product, as
outlined below, on a temporary basis for trial, evaluation, non-
commercial purposes only (the "Evaluation Period"). The Evaluation
Period is limited to the greater of the period of time specified to you
by Borland ..."
On the other hand, a "Named User" license makes numerous references
suggesting that it relates specifically to an identified and
identifiable _individual_. The registration process for the Explorers
does not require this.
I have an Explorer installation that is registered to my employer - that
is not a Named User. An email address does not necessarily identify an
individual either at the time of a license being issued or subsequently.
Nowhere in the License Agreement does it explicitly state that a Named
User License may expire after a fixed date.
So if I have a license that expires and does not identify a specific
named user what sort of license do I have?
> It may be interpreted that way,
Aha! _That's_ the point. It shouldn't be possible to interpret it any
way other than it was intended - it's a legally binding document for
crying out loud!
> but having Borland publically stating that the Explorer version is not
> evaluation software and can be used for commercial applications, and a
> license that says it is not a trial license, may also be interpreted as
> meaning that the Explorer license is not an evaluation one.
In this case there is no room for interpretation - in the License
Agreement itself, it states that the ONLY thing that can take precedence
over the terms of the license is PROGRAM NOTES.
Public statements from Borland, be that a press release, FAQ, blog or ng
post etc, do not, I think, qualify.
Actually, there is an interpretation that may be made of such public
statements. Two possible interpretations in fact:
1. Such public statements have been made knowing that it will not
interfere with the future assertion of legal rights by Borland should
they choose to exercise those rights (anyone can make a mistake right?
even in public statements - "Oh but we didn't mean it" doesn't work for
legally binding documents - you are expected to have got your terms
right before offering up and entering into that agreement)
2. The License Agreement was not adequately revised to reflect the
intended and permitted use of Explorer editions.
I think it was Napoleon that said something like "never blame on malice
that which can be explained by incompetence".
So it's probably true to say that the problem is simply an inadequately
revised License.txt, which should be easy to address. Borland have the
email address of _everyone_ that has installed a Turbo Explorer, so a
new License.txt can be issued overnight.
--
Jolyon Smith
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> From the horses mouth: Pay no attention to the license agreement.
" ... comments that say otherwise." <> license agreement.
The former refers to all in this group or elsewhere that insist that nothing
Nick or others from Borland says is true or can be trusted.
That said, I absolutely agree the license document needs to be updated to
reflect their intent for the Explorer product, but in the meantime,
Borlanders' comments can be trusted more than those that insist otherwise.
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"Democracy, without the guarantee of liberty, is merely a method of
selecting tyrants." - Alan Nitikman
Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)
> From the horses mouth: Pay no attention to the license agreement.
Folks --
You are free to build commercial applications with the Turbo Explorer.
David Clegg
> "In order to evaluate the Product, you may install the Product, as
> outlined below, on a temporary basis for trial, evaluation, non-
> commercial purposes only (the "Evaluation Period"). The Evaluation
> Period is limited to the greater of the period of time specified to
> you by Borland ..."
Sure, but that doesn't state that every license which has a timeout is
an evaluation license. But you appear to me to be interpreting it that
way.
We have a license agreement that states that unless explicitly called
an 'Evaluation' license, the license should be considered a 'Named
User' license, which doesn't have any commercial restrictions. As you
have correctly pointed out, the agreement also states that an
Evaluation license will have an evaluation period, but does *not* state
that having an license that has a set period before expiry means that
the license is is an evaluation one.
So not only do we have a license that does not explicitly state that it
is an Evaluation license, it also states that it is not a Trial
license. I know the license agreement doesn't use the term 'Trial' but
I think it is reasonable to equate the two terms. Certainly more
reasonable than claiming that a license that doesn't use the term
'Evaluation' is an evaluation license, especially after getting
clarification from the company who issued the license.
> That's the point. It shouldn't be possible to interpret it any
> way other than it was intended - it's a legally binding document for
> crying out loud!
Well, good luck on your quest to get a legally binding document that
can't be interpreted in more than one way.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time
I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain.
Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to
drive?" - Homer Simpson
Rick Carter
>> From the horses mouth: Pay no attention to the license agreement.
Nick Hodges wrote:
>Folks --
>You are free to build commercial applications with the Turbo Explorer.
Jolyn, you know what they say:
Just because you're paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they're not out
to get you. :)
I'd be very surprised if anyone within Borland or DevCo chases after
anyone for building commercial apps with Turbo Explorer, after all the
public statements that were made that it's OK.
Obviously there have been some sloppy "copy and paste" errors that made
their way into the license file, and it will probably take some time and
effort to get all the right managers and lawyers to sign off on any
changes. I'm just amazed that the Turbo products got released as they
were, in spite of all the PHB managers and lawyers at Borland. And I am
grateful to Borland and the DTG for giving us the Turbos!
Rick Carter
cart...@despammed.com
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
John Kaster (Borland/DevCo)
> Borland should make this kind of thing 100% waterproof.
I strongly recommend reading Guy Kawasaki's book "Rules for
Revolutionaries." In particular, the part about "churn, baby, churn."
--
John Kaster http://blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: http://qc.borland.com
Get source: http://cc.borland.com
If it's not here, it's not happening: http://ec.borland.com
Ingvar Nilsen
> Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
>
> > Borland should make this kind of thing 100% waterproof.
>
> I strongly recommend reading Guy Kawasaki's book "Rules for
> Revolutionaries." In particular, the part about "churn, baby, churn."
Thanks for the reminder. I lost his speech (was it San Diego or Long
Beach?) but have the book, we got it all of us, I believe.
John Kaster (Borland/DevCo)
> I lost his speech (was it San Diego or Long
> Beach?) but have the book, we got it all of us, I believe.
Yes, everyone should have received a copy. Guy's blog is also one of
the few I specifically set aside time to read every once in a while.
John Kaster (Borland/DevCo)
> Thanks a whole bunch!
You're welcome. Whether you're a 'business man' or not, Guy's stuff is
usually very interesting.
Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)
>
> So if I have a license that expires and does not identify a specific
> named user what sort of license do I have?
You have a named user license. In this case, the named user is your
company. Repeat: You have a named user license. You do not have an
evaluation license. The fact that it expires does /not/ make it an
evaluation license. In fact, the license explicitly states it is /not/
a Trial license.
The license you have for Turbo Explorer is also explicitly /not/ a
"non-commercial only" license meaning that you can develop commercial
applications.
Therefore, the license is fine for commercial development. It is a
named-user, non-expiring, non-Trial license. One can see that in the
License Manager.
The text in LICENSE.TXT is fine, though I agree it could be more
explicit. It was thoroughly reviewed and vetted by Borland lawyers.
Please note that I am not a lawyer, though these issues have been
discussed internally with lawyers.
I hope that clears things up.
Ingvar Nilsen
> http://blog.guykawasaki.com/
Thanks a whole bunch! I am interested in topics like this
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > They are -- pay no attention to comments that say otherwise.
>
> From the horses mouth: Pay no attention to the license agreement.
I figured Mr Ed said it, because Nick certainly didn't.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Jolyon Smith
says...
> the license agreement doesn't use the term 'Trial' but
> I think it is reasonable to equate the two terms
You and I might consider it reasonable, but in terms of strict
definitions the two are not the same. Lawyers love that kind of wriggle
room.
;)
> We have a license agreement that states that unless explicitly called
> an 'Evaluation' license, the license should be considered a 'Named
> User' license
That is _not_ what it says. It says:
"Unless your License Certificate identifies your acquisition of another
license type, you are acquiring a Named User License"
A license certificate that is restricted to a fixed period of time that
is not for a named individual most accurately describes and _identifies_
an Evaluation License under the terms defined in the license agreement.
Nowhere in the license certificate (as displayed by License Manager at
any rate) are _either_ of the formally defined license type terms
mentioned by name.
> especially after getting
> clarification from the company who issued the license.
Agreed - as the license itself states - if you're not sure you should
contact Borland to get clarification. Note however that the licensee is
required to contact Borland for that clarification. A general
statement, etc would come under the heading of things that cannot
override the terms of the license.
> Well, good luck on your quest to get a legally binding document that
> can't be interpreted in more than one way.
In this case it should be pretty easy: If there is no such thing as an
Evaluation License for Turbo Explorer (or indeed Pro - the Explorers ARE
the "evaluation" editions, no?) there is no need to make ANY reference
to an Evaluation License or any restrictions that might be imposed on
such a license.
--
Jolyon Smith
David Clegg
> That is not what it says. It says:
>
> "Unless your License Certificate identifies your acquisition of
> another license type, you are acquiring a Named User License"
How does that differ from what I said? The License certificate does not
identify that the license is an Evaluation one, so therefore it must be
a Named User license according to the above statement and the fact that
the license agreement states that the types of licenses available are
Evaluation or Named User.
> A license certificate that is restricted to a fixed period of time
> that is not for a named individual most accurately describes and
> identifies an Evaluation License under the terms defined in the
> license agreement.
Is that something you found in the license agreement, or is that your
own thoughts on the matter? I certainly saw reference to the fact that
an Evaluation license has a timeout period, but no reference to the
fact that a license with a timeout period is always considered to be an
Evaluation license.
Anywho, this debate is pretty pointless. It's abundantly clear what
Borland's intention is here, so lets just agree that perhaps the
implementation of this intent could be clarified. ISTM it should be
sufficient to change the License Manager to use the term 'Evaluation
License' instead of 'Trial License', but of course IANAL.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Always remember that you're representing your country. I guess what
I'm saying is, don't mess up France the way you messed up your room." -
Homer Simpson
Jolyon Smith
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they're not out
> to get you. :)
lol
(nervously looks over shoulder)
> I'd be very surprised if anyone within Borland or DevCo chases after
> anyone for building commercial apps with Turbo Explorer, after all the
> public statements that were made that it's OK.
Me too. I just think that if you are going to pay lawyers fat wages to
come up with legally binding agreements that you are going to require
your users to sign up to (and presumably therefore expect them to read),
even if your giving them something for free, then it should be as clear
and accurate as possible.
> I'm just amazed that the Turbo products got released as they
> were,
Yes, although perhaps my amazement is somewhat different to yours.
In the light of the hullabaloo surrounding the announcement and the
public attention that was sought, I would have thought the Turbos would
have been easier to install ("they're for newbies, right?) and greater
attention paid to the branding, ensuring a cohesive and consistent
perception of the product.
As it is we have a "Turbo" with a split personality, and most of the
time it still thinks it is BDS. The apparently lazy search/replace
approach to the "Turbo" branding results in things that are confusing
and in some cases downright nonesensical, e.g during installation being
prompted for the Borland Developer Studio installation CD, and a welcome
page that tell's a newbie:
<quote>
What's New In Turbo Delphi for Win32?
Turbo Delphi for Win32 provides key new features for developing Delphi,
Delphi for .NET, C#, and C++ applications
</quote>
Wow!
The choice of functional limitations is dubious imho, but even setting
that very subjective opinion to one side, the way the restrictions have
been implemented is so poor as to be a (bad) joke.
By which I don't mean the apparent ease with which they can be
circumvented, but the way that functionality NOT related to the
restriction seems to have been removed in the same sledgehammer stroke.
Have you tried importing a type library in Turbo?
It seems that to prevent component wrappers being installed into the
palette, the entire type library import facility has been removed.
Creating component wrappers shouldn't even be a problem (we are after
all supposed to be allowed to use 3rd party components at runtime).
It's INSTALLING them in the palette that should be prevented.
> in spite of all the PHB managers and lawyers at Borland. And I am
> grateful to Borland and the DTG for giving us the Turbos!
Me too. It was the final shove I needed to realise that Borland aren't
likely to make the comeback I was hoping for.
I've been putting off the move to C# and VS in the hope that Delphi
would somehow be rejuvenated and have a brighter future than had seemed
likely in recent years.
But sadly the Turbo's really aren't what they should have been and so I
shall be keeping my "Old Faithful" D7 for Win32 development and
reluctantly, finally turn to VS and C# for .net.
(What's that? Do I hear "and good riddance" from certain quarters?
lol)
Alas, poor Delphi. I knew it well.
:(
--
Jolyon Smith
Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)
> "Unless your License Certificate identifies your acquisition of
> another license type, you are acquiring a Named User License"
Yes, exactly. Turbo Explorer registrants receive a named user license.
> A license certificate that is restricted to a fixed period of time
> that is not for a named individual most accurately describes and
> identifies an Evaluation License under the terms defined in the
> license agreement.
That is not correct. Turbo Explorer registrants receive a named user
license.
Chris Burrows
news:MPG.1f79ff065...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> But sadly the Turbo's really aren't what they should have been and so I
> shall be keeping my "Old Faithful" D7 for Win32 development and
> reluctantly, finally turn to VS and C# for .net.
>
A word of advice, don't waste your time (like I did) on the free VS Express
editions. In comparison, concerns about the limitations of the Turbo
Explorer editions are negligible.
OTOH, maybe you should try the VS Express editions, then give the Turbos
another try - you might find yourself looking at it with a very different
point of view.
You really don't know what you're missing if you stick with D7. However,
unfortunately for now, you have to get beyond the install glitches and
examining the licence agreement with a microscope to start to fully
appreciate the improvements. I'm confident that DevCo will eventually fix up
these teething troubles.
--
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
damian marquez
news:450e...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> I was loading my own dbgrid descendant (a little fix by the way... its
>> just a habit I guess...) and all of a sudden
>> dclusr(100) refuses to work...
>
> You mean you have not installed the new Turbo Explorer version but the one
> you were using now also refuses to load the package? That's odd,
> particularly since my old installation still works.
Hi Tom, I guess I did some kinda strange thing with my installation. I tried
everything from restoring the
original dclusr.* files from the CDs but it did not work. Finally I
uninstalled Delphi completely and worked ok.
*However* I did install FastMM4 and DelphiSpeedUp and when Delphi started
the dclusr.dpk stuff had
dissapeared... What I did? Uninstalled DelphiSpeedup... and now it愀 ok...
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
> > "Unless your License Certificate identifies your acquisition of
> > another license type, you are acquiring a Named User License"
>
> How does that differ from what I said?
In the meaning of the word "identifies".
> Anywho, this debate is pretty pointless. It's abundantly clear what
> Borland's intention is here, so lets just agree that perhaps the
> implementation of this intent could be clarified.
Yep. Although the point is that as it stands, Borland could conceivably
_change_ their intention and still remain within the letter of the
license agreement.
Whether you believe the debate to be pointless depends on what extent
you trust Borland to not change their position (and are going to rely on
that trust not being broken).
> it should be
> sufficient to change the License Manager to use the term 'Evaluation
> License' instead of 'Trial License'
Yep. Or to remove any mention of Evaluation License from the license
agreement.
Which kind of begs the question why neither, very simple, step has been
taken.
--
Jolyon Smith
Jolyon Smith
> A word of advice, don't waste your time (like I did) on the free VS Express
> editions. In comparison, concerns about the limitations of the Turbo
> Explorer editions are negligible.
I had no concerns about the limitations, other than a feeling that they
were the _wrong_ limitations and would fail to encourage the transition
from Explorer to Pro that they are presumably intended to stimulate.
> OTOH, maybe you should try the VS Express editions, then give the Turbos
> another try - you might find yourself looking at it with a very different
> point of view.
Actually, I'm currently looking at Chrome. Possibly the best of both
worlds?
> You really don't know what you're missing if you stick with D7.
Yes I do, but mostly I also know what I'm _getting_. i.e. a rock solid,
performant (hate that word) and responsive IDE.
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
Dan Smith
Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.newzealand> wrote:
>Which kind of begs the question why neither, very simple, step has been
>taken.
Perhaps because the number of paranoid users is extremely small?
--
Dan
Arthur Hoornweg
> Why? People who want to, will always get around any limitation.
That's no reason to make it easy.
If it's just a matter of downloading a tweak to be able to install any
package,
don't you think it'll affect sales? If it's so easy that it can be done
without
altering the actual product, such a tweak may even be legal. Such a
scenario must be avoided at all cost.
> If Borland limits the Turbo Explorers too much for their taste, they will get a
> cracked version of BDS.
AFAIK T.Explorer is the Borland counterpart of Visual Studio Express and
meant to compete with that. To lure beginning developers over to the
Borland camp. Students, hobbyists, beginning enterpreneurs, who will
buy the full product later. An investment in the future.
> Also, as I understand it, the Explorer editions are
> meant to be converted in Pro editions by just installing a new license.
I really hope that's not the case, or else the possibility for cracking the
product is built-in from the start. They should compile the product
with some IFDEFS to remove the "full" functionality from the executable.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(In order to reply per e-mail, please just remove the ".net"
from my e-mail address. Leave the rest of the address intact
including the "antispam" part. I had to take this measure to
counteract unsollicited mail.)
Eric Grange
> scenario must be avoided at all cost.
I agree with this...
> I really hope that's not the case, or else the possibility for cracking the
> product is built-in from the start. They should compile the product
> with some IFDEFS to remove the "full" functionality from the executable.
...and also hope for that too.
If the full version's code isn't different from the limited version,
then vulnerability is very high, no matter how much time will be
"invested" in securing the license mechanism.
Having different executables is the only way to enforce protection of a
"limited" version from keygens (which can give an illegal version all
the appearances of being legal).
Eric
Dave Jewell
news:450d4091$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> No need to keep the whole original download. The difference is
> DCLUSR.RES :)
Presumably, they have just taken BORLAND_SIG out of the RES file?
Dave
Tom van der Vlugt
Arthur Hoornweg <antispam...@casema.nl.net> wrote:
>I really hope that's not the case, or else the possibility
>for cracking the product is built-in from the start. They
>should compile the product with some IFDEFS to remove
>the "full" functionality from the executable.
This is a good comment of Arthur, since cracking is then
totally impossible :-), but there's one drawback: Borland
should maintain two versions in this case. :-(
Tom
I.P. Nichols
>
> AFAIK T.Explorer is the Borland counterpart of Visual Studio Express and
> meant to compete with that. To lure beginning developers over to the
> Borland camp. Students, hobbyists, beginning enterpreneurs, who will
> buy the full product later. An investment in the future.
I'm not at all sure that VS Express and T.Explorer share a common strategic
goal. Like you I'm under the impression that Borland's DTG intends T.Express
to, as you put it, lure beginning developers over to the Borland's DTG camp
with the hope that they will later buy the full featured product. However
it's my impression that Microsoft has a much more ambitious goal with VS
Express - namely as the agent to make the Visual Studio IDE the dominate
ubitiqious IDE.
If one examines the capability feature set of VS Express and VS Standard or
Pro, there aren't too many differences, the big one being it lacks the VSIP
interface that allows integration of 3rd party things like Chrome. It does
allow the addition of 3rd party components and add-ons. Then there is the
new XNA framework program for writing games for the XBox 360 which is only
available for VS Express.
Microsoft apparently expects one of the benefits of their sizeable VS
Express investment will be in the form of an almost limitless supply of
future VS knowledgeable programming talent and accordingly don't attempt to
limit the feature set so as to capture more paying VS customers in the short
run. It could well be FUD on a grand scale never witnessed before. ;-)
Again let me state that this is my own impression based entirely on
supposition and no supporting evidence.
Jolyon Smith
When drafting legal documents lawyers generally don't work on the basis
of how much trust/paranoia they can rely on/assume/expect from the
parties in a contract.
--
Jolyon Smith
Rick Carter
>shall be keeping my "Old Faithful" D7 for Win32 development and
>reluctantly, finally turn to VS and C# for .net.
Is this the same Jolyon Smith who complained vehemently about needing to
install the .NET SDK in order to work with Turbo Delphi?
"If I can't install Turbo Delphi without installing the .NET SDK, I'll
just install VS C#, which will require me to install the .NET SDK."
Perfectly logical. ;-)
Thomas Mueller
Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
>> Why? People who want to, will always get around any limitation.
> That's no reason to make it easy.
I'd rather have the guys at Borland / DevCo / DTG spend their time improving
Delphi instead of trying to make some copy protection water proof. The
latter is impossible anyway.
>> Also, as I understand it, the Explorer editions are
>> meant to be converted in Pro editions by just installing a new license.
> I really hope that's not the case, or else the possibility for cracking
> the product is built-in from the start. They should compile the product
> with some IFDEFS to remove the "full" functionality from the executable.
I don't know for sure since I haven't bought a Turbo Pro license (I own BDS,
so why should I?). It just looks a lot like it... Why else should there be
all the additional packages that can't be installed in the explorer
edition?
MfG
twm
Jolyon Smith
> >But sadly the Turbo's really aren't what they should have been and so I
> >shall be keeping my "Old Faithful" D7 for Win32 development and
> >reluctantly, finally turn to VS and C# for .net.
>
> Is this the same Jolyon Smith who complained vehemently about needing to
> install the .NET SDK in order to work with Turbo Delphi?
Yes - for Turbo Delphi __WIN32__. I don't want/need .net __right now__.
But __WHEN__ the time comes ("finally" see?) it won't be Turbo
Anything.net that I turn to.
Heck, apart from anything else, why would I - or anyone with even half a
brain for that matter - use a tool that doesn't even support the
_current_ .net framework?
> Perfectly logical. ;-)
Yep, and I didn't even have to think about it - it was perfectly logical
from the start.
Sorry to disappoint.
--
Jolyon Smith
Thomas Mueller
damian marquez wrote:
> Finally I
> uninstalled Delphi completely and worked ok.
> *However* I did install FastMM4 and DelphiSpeedUp and when Delphi started
> the dclusr.dpk stuff had
> dissapeared... What I did? Uninstalled DelphiSpeedup... and now it´s
> ok...
Hm, there is a point. DelphiSpeedUp replaces some functions of the IDE, so
maybe it interferes there. But I just tried to load dclusr without
DelphiSpeedUp in the new Turbo Explorer and still got an error, so it might
be the culprit for the old version, but not for the new one.
MfG
twm
Chris Pattinson (Borland/DTG)
> Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
> > Why? People who want to, will always get around any limitation.
>
> That's no reason to make it easy.
> If it's just a matter of downloading a tweak to be able to install
> any package, don't you think it'll affect sales? If it's so easy that
> it can be done without altering the actual product, such a tweak may
> even be legal. Such a scenario must be avoided at all cost.
>
> > If Borland limits the Turbo Explorers too much for their taste,
> > they will get a cracked version of BDS.
>
> AFAIK T.Explorer is the Borland counterpart of Visual Studio Express
> and meant to compete with that. To lure beginning developers over to
> the Borland camp. Students, hobbyists, beginning enterpreneurs, who
> will buy the full product later. An investment in the future.
>
> > Also, as I understand it, the Explorer editions are
> > meant to be converted in Pro editions by just installing a new
> > license.
>
> I really hope that's not the case, or else the possibility for
> cracking the product is built-in from the start. They should compile
> the product with some IFDEFS to remove the "full" functionality from
> the executable.
The only way to keep software completely protected is at the bottom of
a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door
saying 'Beware of the leopard'. And even then if it was on a computer
with wireless access, it might not be safe.
That being said, we wanted to balance the ability of Explorers to be
upgraded easily against the ability to make it too easy to crack and
use improperly. So you'll see a number of packages in the Explorer
making it 'Pro ready', and ideally you just need to enter a serial key
and immediately have Pro functionality and ability to use 3rd party
components.
We couldn't release a few files due to licensing, and the command line
compiler would be a real pain to protect in any reasonable manner so
offer that to Professional registered users as a download (or should
soon - red tape may still be holding that up, I need to go check...).
The team is just happy to give developers an easier time to try out our
IDE without having to scare folks away with high prices. We'll be
happier to see people 'dig' the Explorers and upgrade to Professional,
of course. That's the best motivation to do it again.
--
Chris Pattinson
QA Manager, DTG, Developer Studio
Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)
> (or should
> soon - red tape may still be holding that up, I need to go check...).
Yes, red tape is holding it up.
Pardon me while I go rub jalapeno juice in my eyes to make myself feel
better after dealing with this today.
Dan Smith
Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.newzealand> wrote:
>When drafting legal documents lawyers generally don't work on the basis
>of how much trust/paranoia they can rely on/assume/expect from the
>parties in a contract.
I agree. I'm also sure they don't change them at the whim of the paranoid few.
--
Dan
Jolyon Smith
I don't know where this "paranoid" crack is coming from.
For my concern to be "paranoia" it would have to be a concern that _I_
might be compromised or suffer in some way as a result of the license
agreement being so woolly.
But since I shall not be using Turbo Explorer this cannot be a concern
for me. And if I _were_ to start using Explorer for any commercial
purpose I would be sure to do as instructed in the license agreement and
contact Borland first for a binding clarification, and so again,
personally would have no need for concern.
No, my concern is that others should be aware that they _might_ feel
inclined to seek the same assurance if they actually _read_ the license
(my guess is that most people never actually read the thing that they
are indicating their acceptance of).
You can call it paranoia if you like - I call it community minded.
--
Jolyon Smith
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> I don't know where this "paranoid" crack is coming from.
You're right, not the right word.
> You can call it paranoia if you like - I call it community minded.
How about obsessed?
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding,
when it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by
minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer
Dan Smith
Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.newzealand> wrote:
>You can call it paranoia if you like - I call it community minded.
I'd call it unnecessarily fearing the worst, based on a questionable
interpretation. It is made worse by the fact that assurances have been given that it is
quite ok to use the Explorer versions commercially.
It would seem more to be more "community minded" to spread the assurance that has
been given.
--
Dan
Jolyon Smith
> It would seem more to be more "community minded" to spread the assurance
> that has been given.
Said the butcher to the turkey:
"I assure you, my fine feathered friend, this Christmas will be the best
yet."
Assurances are fine.
Insurances are better.
Not needing either assurance or insurance is best.
--
Jolyon Smith
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> > You can call it paranoia if you like - I call it community minded.
>
> How about obsessed?
Aggressively wrong?
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
All the great TeamB service you've come to expect plus (New!)
Irish Tin Whistle tips: http://learningtowhistle.blogspot.com