I didn't read through the whole Slashdot conversation... What was the resolution of the issue, anyhow? I figured it was just a mis-wording of the license from BCB3 (that they were trying to prevent distribution of their source libraries, not your OWN source) and I figured it may have been corrected in BCB4 or BCB5.
-Zak
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Oh, here's what the Slashdot poster forgot to quote:
'Nothing in this license statement permits you to derive the source code of files that Borland has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code that is entirely your own. Code which you generate with a Borland code generator, such as AppExpert, is considered by Borland to be your code.'
-Zak
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I was curious if anybody saw the recent article on slashdot about the Borland CBuilder License?
What ramifications might this have for the Win32 GUI port?
I overeacted as did the submitter to slashdot.
Sorry guys.
I didn't read through the whole Slashdot conversation... What was the resolution of the issue, anyhow? I figured it was just a mis-wording of the license from BCB3 (that they were trying to prevent distribution of their source libraries, not your OWN source) and I figured it may have been corrected in BCB4 or BCB5.
-Zak
Oh, here's what the Slashdot poster forgot to quote:
'Nothing in this license statement permits you to derive the source code of files that Borland has provided to you in executable form only, or to reproduce, modify, use, or distribute the source code of such files. You are not, of course, restricted from distributing source code that is entirely your own. Code which you generate with a Borland code generator, such as AppExpert, is considered by Borland to be your code.'
-Zak