Re: legal Q about masm

From: Randall Hyde (randyhyde_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:10:15 GMT

"Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:W0TTd.18$jY1.16@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

> 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?

Uh, "open source" and "free use" have two different meanings. While GPL
insists
on open source, open source doesn't imply that the software is free for any
use.

> 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...

How anyone could believe that "public domain" is "anti-GPL" is beyond me.
The cool thing about public domain is that you can change one character
in the file and release the new source code under GPL -- perfectly legal
and ethical under the GPL (theoretically, you could release the file
unchanged under GPL, but then there would be no force of law to
protect you, as an "infringer" could claim that they got the original,
public domain, file). Of course, someone who did this, and also
claimed a certain ethical position on the basis of distributing "free"
software would have some serious ethic issues to address, such as
why *adding* restrictions somehow made the software more "free". :-)

> 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"...

Even if one chooses to operate under the *worst* rumors of the
alleged MASM EULA, most MASM32 users wouldn't care.
After all, they're largely developing Win32 apps with MASM.
They are not developing apps for Linux. They are not developing
OSes. If they were, and they absolutely needed to use MASM for
some reason, they could purchase VS and get a licensed copy of
MASM that doesn't have such restrictions on it. The alleged
restrictions apply only to the free version that people download
as part of the DDK. And given the number of such distributions,
with a corresponding plethoria of EULAs, I seriously doubt any
single EULA would stand up because you could always claim
"I used the other one.".

Of course, if you *are* developing an OS, then it's wise to
consider using another assembler as your basic assembler
(e.g., ReactOS and NASM).

> 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)...

Bottom line is this: if you're developing commercial software with MASM,
the *best* thing to do is get a legal, licensed, version of the thing. It
comes
with Visual Studio. No, VS is not free (or even cheap to most people).
But if you're doing something that's going to invoke the wrath of Microsoft,
purchasing the thing is a lot less costly than the legal bills that might
ensue.
As for all the "hobby" projects people talk about around here, forget it.
Microsoft wouldn't waste their time. You want to write your OS with
MASM? Go right ahead. 99% of such projects end with the boot loader
("I've written a boot loader, that's good enough!"). Those who decide to
go on can either switch assemblers (not a bad idea), or purchase VS.
At that point, the cost of VS will be easily justified.

Cheers,
Randy Hyde