Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Oct 2009 14:47 UTC
Let's do a little trip down memory lane. We're talking the '80s, early '90s, and we're looking at a company called Borland, which produced several well-known and popular products related to software development. Back in those days, Borland had an end user license agreement. However, contrary to the EULAs we know and despise today, Borland's 'No-Nonsense License Statement' was a whole lot simpler, and in fact, is a perfect example of how software should be treated.
Permalink for comment 389402
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-09-08
I still believe this is the default. EULA's are invalid (except for certain parts of US and Australia), so you have to go by sale laws. They usually allow back-up for personal use, and media shifting (necessary to ever install a program), re-installing on new computer and selling used software. While not as clear as Borlands License, I still believe most sales laws would allow this interpretation which is why I've used this a general rule since the first time I read it.