Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz From: ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) Newsgroups: net.micro.cpm Subject: Re: Turbo Pascal Message-ID: <677@ihuxx.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 12:00:44 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxx.677 Posted: Tue Feb 21 12:00:44 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 02:11:33 EST References: <16676@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 26 Read Jerry's comments about Turbo in Feb. Byte. By the way, I disagree with his gripes concerning Borland's policy of charging extra $100 for unlimited object code distribution. Why didn't Jerry complain about Sorcim not letting people distribute freely the PRUN.COM file (i.e. the p-code interpreter that comes with Pascal/M)? In a sense, this would equivalent, as linked object code is made in large part of library procedures. Now, quite possibly the the general trend is toward automatic licensing of compiler's output. I only think that Jerry's flames were exagerated. --Ed Howorka. Excuse me, but I *thoroughly* agree with Jerry's complaints about the $100 fee. A compiler or interpreter is a tool. If I can't use it as one without forking over extra money to the providers of the tool, it's totally useless to me. Such a charge means that I AUTOMATICALLY have to add the charge to my product; it's not so bad with a one-time unlimited fee, but is nevertheless annoying enough that I would NEVER use such a tool for production work. (Never mind that I wouldn't produce a marketable product in PASCAL in the first place...) And often such a charge is added on a per-unit distribution basis! I refuse to encourage practices in any way whatsoever, and I encourage others to do likewise. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz