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