Re: f0dder's fabulous folly.
From: hutch-- (hutch_at_movsd.com)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Beth: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- Previous message: hutch--: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- In reply to: Phil Carmody: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- Next in thread: Beth: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 26 Jul 2004 20:52:53 -0700
Phil,
> Methinks hutch ne sprach pas bueno englantia, capiche?
You are right, I only speak a very perverse dialect of ANGLAIS from
Down Under but it is good enough to communicate with Microsoft
directly. After having bothered to shut the whinging up, what I got
from Microsoft is,
"It is a valid EULA"
and when I put the view to them that the changes in distribution from
MSDN may have effected that, the response I got was,
"IT IS A !!!! VALID !!!! EULA"
So after a number of other communications clarifying related matters I
simply take their word that their EULA for the WIN98DDK "IS A VALID
EULA". If Microsoft could not find anything wrong with the
distribution method of their software which originated from MSDN in
1998, then I have little reason to keep bothering them about it.
After having been abused in cryptographic FRANCAIS for some years for
having the audacity to write MASM code and distribute it at no cost
for years, I don't give a flying PHUK about the whinging any longer
and everyone is welcome to have an INFINITE ^ INFINITE percent squared
of the profits of maintaining a project of this type for 7 years.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
- Next message: Beth: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- Previous message: hutch--: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- In reply to: Phil Carmody: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- Next in thread: Beth: "Re: f0dder's fabulous folly."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
