Re: legal Q about masm

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:36:06 GMT

Rene wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > Rene wrote:
> >> Plus, as he says by himself:
> >>
> >> 2. The software is not redistributable.
> >> 3. The software may only be used with Microsoft Operating
> >> Systems.
> >>
> >> Right on, with these two points. :)
> >
> > Actually, I'm surprised you missed it...did you follow hutch's link to
> > his "explanation"? Because he says that Microsoft have said they will
> > assert their ownership rights not solely in the event of "using the
> > software on non-Microsoft operating systems" but also in the case of
> > its use in _OPEN SOURCE_ projects...
>
> No i did not missed it at all: I thought that
> everybody, here, should already know that one
> of the most significative point, with all the
> guys of this group, including the significative
> "leaders", Randall Hyde, Hutch, Donkey,...) are
> "Anti-GLP".

Ah, I see, you thought it "taken as read" and that's why you didn't mention
it...

> But, given the level of stupidity that seems to
> be the dominant flow on the Assembly Medias, you
> are right to insist on that point.

Well, I don't "insist" and it has nothing to do with "stupidity"...I just
thought some people might not be bothered to follow the link...

And this new "condition" about no "open source" usage I've never heard
anyone mention before...I think that's a pretty bold and serious
"condition" to be added...note: If phrased as "open source" then we're NOT
only talking about GPL...we'd be effectively talking about all kinds of
"open source" licence from the MIT licence to the BSD licence and such
too...those are all "open source" as well...GPL may be the "most famous"
but it's not the be-all and end-all of "open source" licences...there are
others...

Including - and here's the _really_ "tricky" part - would not even _PUBLIC
DOMAIN_, where it's released as "source code", also count as "open source"?
Heck, we're starting to get into "legal definitions" here...what if it was
_ENTIRELY COMMERCIAL_ but that this _commercial_ company wanted to make
source code available to their customers for some reason? Where does "open
source" begin and "closed source" end?

This is a condition against a _development methodology_, for Pete's
sake...this is like stipulating "you may only use this software if you
conform to Microsoft working practices and working hours"...huh?!? Might as
well "go whole hog" here and add a "condition" about not being allowed to
wear hats whilst using the software or something...

This up until now "hidden condition" seems far more than "trivial" to
me...and I'm not being "political", by the way, to push some "open source"
corner...but I'm just amazed at such a condition against a _development
methodology_...that's quite obscene...

What next? "Illegal methodologies"? "You may not use MASM to develop OOP
software"...really, this is _ON A PAR_ with that kind of insanity...a
"condition" that you _MUST_ use a "secretive" development methodology? How
is this assessed? If, for example, I do something "closed source" but then
someone asks about a particular routine and I give them the source code to
just that routine...well, in part, that's being "open source"...so,
Microsoft's "licence" prohibits me from letting anyone but myself see my
own code?

Better yet, I create a library using MASM...in order to use the library, of
course, I supply some ".h" include file for C programmers to access the
library...but - wait - no, that's "prohibited"!! Well, that ".h" file would
be _source code_, would it not? And the licence stipulates no "open
source"...hutch did not stipulate any "qualifiers" on that in what he said,
so I would assume that this would be a "licence breach"...well, if that's
the case, then this "MASM licence" appears to be forbidding the development
of libraries (or, at least, you can create the libraries but you can't
supply any "header files" for using or accessing it, as is what's usual for
libraries to define the necessary types, structures, functions and so
forth)...

No, really...I'm shocked at this because this goes way, way beyond
"political", so to speak...if Microsoft mean "open source" and they ain't
adding no "qualifiers" then this licence is ludicrously restrictive and
prohibitive...

Remember: "Open source" != "GPL"...it is just _ONE_ possible "open source"
licence, which happens to be the most famous for various reasons...but this
"condition" is _BEYOND_ mere "anti-GPL"...without qualifiers or
definitions, one must assume they mean _ANY_ and _ALL_ cases where - in
whole or part - any kind of "source code" is made openly available...

That's not a small thing at all...for instance, HLA - if it were written in
MASM (it is not, so this doesn't apply but "for example") - would not be
permitted to release its source code in the public domain...use of MASM
would "forbid" any libraries developed to reveal any of its source
code...and as "header files" _ARE_ source code then you cannot supply
these? Alternatively, if one _is_ permitted to distribute "header files"
for one's own library files then we have to _INSIST_ that we know where
this line is drawn...if "header files" are okay, then what about a project
with a ".rc" resource file that "exports" its "#defines" into a ".rh" file?
Would this be "permissible" to be made openly available? It's _source code_
and MASM _WILL_ be processing it, just as much as the resource compiler
(the use of ".rh" files is typical to _share_ the "#defines"...so, though
the ".rc" might be considered part of RC.EXE's licence, not MASM's, we
still have "overlap" issues...plus, how weird: If you download RC.EXE with
the DDK, you _can't_ do this but if you download it elsewhere you can? How
exactly - in a court of law - do Microsoft intend to _prove_ how a binary
(identical in different distributions) actually came from the DDK? Being
sued, this would be "balance of probabilities" in a civil case, rather than
the criminal level of "beyond all reasonable doubt"...but, still, how do
they intend to show where a binary _came from_ when the exact same binary
is available from more than one source under different "conditions"?)...

This does NOT clarify the legality whatsoever...it's now made it all the
more confusing and imperative that MASM32 users _KNOW_ the full extents of
this "valid EULA"...

Just a point of caution: "Ignorance is no defence in law"...if it should
reach a court, then a claim of "hutch said it was okay" would NOT excuse
the action of "receiving goods" from hutch whatsoever...the court would
urge that it was _your_ responsibility to ensure the transaction was
"legit"...so, if hutch continues to "evade" _CLARIFYING_ the "legalities"
of this all - clearly and fully - then the caution must be issued, to have
any moral decency at all (which hutch is FAILING miserably to display in
concern for the users he is "supplying"): "DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK"...all
consequences of such actions _WILL_ be legally your full and
non-transferrable responsibility (indeed, hutch would be responsible for
what he has done, you for what you have done...it does NOT get "dissolved"
in any way because you got it through hutch (unless you could demonstrate
you were "scammed" by hutch...this would be next to impossible to do,
though, as it is possible to _independently_ get "clarification" from
Microsoft directly, as Herbert has _correctly_ been trying to do)...that
is, if the "guy down the pub" sells you something "off the back of a
lorry", be aware that "receiving stolen goods" is _JUST AS EQUAL_ a crime
in law as the original theft itself)...

> PS. Yesterday, i understood (... i am slow...) the
> reason why you were supporting Randall Hyde on a
> regular basis, here. No comment, but... shame on
> you.

Now, wait a minute! Don't you go "FUDding" here, Rene...what have you
"understood"? State it _EXPLICITLY_...no cheap "rumour mill" FUD lies here,
thank you very much...

Not least because I'd like to know what you think you've "understood"...I
support Randy on as regular a basis as Randy is _correct_...that's
it...and, as you say "shame on you" - when supporting truth is hardly
"shameful" - then I can only conclude you've either _FALSELY_ think you've
"understood" but have, in fact, _MISUNDERSTOOD_...or you are supplying "no
comment" because this is NOTHING but a cheap and malicious "FUD
tactic"...to "imply" something "shameful" which has no basis in fact
whatsoever but you believe that if you "imply" it hard enough, then you
might convince people of your _LIES_...

So, to demonstrate that you are NOT doing so, the ball is in your court to
_PROVE THIS EXPLICITLY_ by stating it to the group...or it must be assumed
that you are "FUDding" and creating "malicious rumours" of NO SUBSTANCE
whatsoever...

Beth :)