First, forget about distributing masm with your application - whatever hutch says, the license doesn't permit you to do it.
If you're generating code on the fly, be *SURE* to use VirtualAlloc for the buffer. Firstly to make sure your code will run on the processors with execute-disable feature (amd64, newest P4's, use PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE protection), but also to make sure the code and data are far apart - having code near modified data gives extreme slowdown. VirtualAlloc allocates on 64k boundaries, which is quite fine.
As for an assembler, have a look at FASM. It's pretty good at backend work, it's open source (with a very liberal license, unlike crappy GPL), and it shouldn't be too hard to modify it to generate in-memory code. I think the executable is around 64kb for the console version, and it can output a lot of formats (include PE DLLs) directly without using a linker.
http://www.flatassembler.net
If you're generating code on the fly, be *SURE* to use VirtualAlloc for the buffer. Firstly to make sure your code will run on the processors with execute-disable feature (amd64, newest P4's, use PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE protection), but also to make sure the code and data are far apart - having code near modified data gives extreme slowdown. VirtualAlloc allocates on 64k boundaries, which is quite fine.
As for an assembler, have a look at FASM. It's pretty good at backend work, it's open source (with a very liberal license, unlike crappy GPL), and it shouldn't be too hard to modify it to generate in-memory code. I think the executable is around 64kb for the console version, and it can output a lot of formats (include PE DLLs) directly without using a linker.
http://www.flatassembler.net
hmmmmm,
irst, forget about distributing masm with your application - whatever hutch says, the license doesn't permit you to do it.
Dilute your ignorance and actually read the licence. Don't attribute your own ignorance to anyone else.
irst, forget about distributing masm with your application - whatever hutch says, the license doesn't permit you to do it.
Dilute your ignorance and actually read the licence. Don't attribute your own ignorance to anyone else.
f0dder,
you seems to be talking alot of 'stupid' stuff lately.
both on linux and/or masm.
think before you post. :roll:
and as i always said, not one really cares about gpl, gnu, open source, closed source, i do whatever i want and no txt file will tell me what to do thank you very much.
if u keep insist on arguing about those stupid subjects than go find a life other than arguing about txt files.
geesh.
you seems to be talking alot of 'stupid' stuff lately.
both on linux and/or masm.
think before you post. :roll:
and as i always said, not one really cares about gpl, gnu, open source, closed source, i do whatever i want and no txt file will tell me what to do thank you very much.
if u keep insist on arguing about those stupid subjects than go find a life other than arguing about txt files.
geesh.
Hmm, f0dder is probably right, not his Linux "comments" of course, but his concerns about masm redistribution. masm is surely not a "source sample" of the win98 ddk or the win32 sdk.
Windows vs Linux, GPL sucks vs GPL is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and other such arguments should be left to the Heap or Crusades. MASM's liscensing issues should be left to lawyers or your ability to read and understand the accompanying text file.
I bother to go after comments of this type because of the misrepresentation involved and the capacity to mislead people who have the legal right to use the software.
Hmm, f0dder is probably right, not his Linux "comments" of course, but his concerns about masm redistribution. masm is surely not a "source sample" of the win98 ddk or the win32 sdk.
Japheth has made the rather stupid mistake of assuming that legal obligation is determined by open information on the internet mixed with a smattering of his extensive legal knowledge where in fact it is determined in private negotiations of a non-discloure nature. To translate this to our two friends, its "none of your business" and neither of you have any equity in such negotiations.
As a matter of fact the obligations have been determined by negotiation with the owner of the software and with the marketing, legal and copyright people involved at Microsoft, both f0dder and Japheth are out of their class.
Such people have nothing to say to me as they don't know what they are talking about but I will pick up anyone who tries to mislead others about software that they have a verified legal right to use.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
Hmm, f0dder is probably right, not his Linux "comments" of course, but his concerns about masm redistribution. masm is surely not a "source sample" of the win98 ddk or the win32 sdk.
Japheth has made the rather stupid mistake of assuming that legal obligation is determined by open information on the internet mixed with a smattering of his extensive legal knowledge where in fact it is determined in private negotiations of a non-discloure nature. To translate this to our two friends, its "none of your business" and neither of you have any equity in such negotiations.
As a matter of fact the obligations have been determined by negotiation with the owner of the software and with the marketing, legal and copyright people involved at Microsoft, both f0dder and Japheth are out of their class.
Such people have nothing to say to me as they don't know what they are talking about but I will pick up anyone who tries to mislead others about software that they have a verified legal right to use.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
Not being a lawyer, and not using MASM I have little opinion on this subject but the DDK liscense (that is distributed with MASM32) is very clear...
MASM is not distributed with source so it is not covered by the "sample code" exception. However, this version of the EULA expressly allows you to create applications and is not limited to Windows apps except where redistributable components are involved.
But in the end who cares as long as Microsoft doesn't enforce the EULA then no-one is hurt and they can gladly go on using the assembler.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following limited, non-exclusive rights:
* SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products, including but not limited to device drivers and other software products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.
* SAMPLE CODE. You may modify the sample source code ("Sample Code") included with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to design, develop and test your Application.
* SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products, including but not limited to device drivers and other software products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.
* SAMPLE CODE. You may modify the sample source code ("Sample Code") included with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to design, develop and test your Application.
MASM is not distributed with source so it is not covered by the "sample code" exception. However, this version of the EULA expressly allows you to create applications and is not limited to Windows apps except where redistributable components are involved.
* Software Transfer. You may not assign or otherwise transfer your rights under this EULA without the written consent of Microsoft.
But in the end who cares as long as Microsoft doesn't enforce the EULA then no-one is hurt and they can gladly go on using the assembler.
To Hutch,
> to mislead others about software that they have a verified legal right to use
I don't mislead anyone. I really would suggest you to calm down and read other people's remarks carefully *before* posting such stuff. The question was if you can redistribute the masm binary together with your self-written code. THat's quite different than just to use masm for binary creation. And I couldn't find this right in the licence texts of MASM32. Your comment is very disappointing and annoying, Hutch!
> to mislead others about software that they have a verified legal right to use
I don't mislead anyone. I really would suggest you to calm down and read other people's remarks carefully *before* posting such stuff. The question was if you can redistribute the masm binary together with your self-written code. THat's quite different than just to use masm for binary creation. And I couldn't find this right in the licence texts of MASM32. Your comment is very disappointing and annoying, Hutch!
japheth,
The fundamentals are to get what you say right in the first place. I have no reason to read what you say carefully as you are simply wrong in your assumption that you can construct legal liability off the internet on the basis of untested interpretation of legal documents that you no equity in whatsoever.
I am corect in saying that you have attempted to mislead people who have a legal right to use the software and further a verified legal right from its owner. I am bound by the owner to supply the EULA and nothing more but I will continue to pick up attempts to misrepresent a licence that has been perfectly clear since its origin.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
The fundamentals are to get what you say right in the first place. I have no reason to read what you say carefully as you are simply wrong in your assumption that you can construct legal liability off the internet on the basis of untested interpretation of legal documents that you no equity in whatsoever.
I am corect in saying that you have attempted to mislead people who have a legal right to use the software and further a verified legal right from its owner. I am bound by the owner to supply the EULA and nothing more but I will continue to pick up attempts to misrepresent a licence that has been perfectly clear since its origin.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
donkey,
I know you posted the section of the EULA for informational purposes but the interpretation is wrong.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following limited, non-exclusive rights:
* SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products, including but not limited to device drivers and other software products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.
Microsoft Licencing Division specifically interpret the licence as applying to their operating systems alone. It is a violation of the licence to use it on other non-Microsoft operating systems.
The licencing division also affirm the direct wording of the licence that EACH USER has the rights specified in that licence.
Matters of distribution are not dealt with in the EULA at all, that is a non-disclosure negotiation with Microsoft marketting, licencing, copyright permissions and the language division that controls the product.
I know you posted the section of the EULA for informational purposes but the interpretation is wrong.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following limited, non-exclusive rights:
* SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may make, install and use up to a maximum of ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products, including but not limited to device drivers and other software products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.
Microsoft Licencing Division specifically interpret the licence as applying to their operating systems alone. It is a violation of the licence to use it on other non-Microsoft operating systems.
The licencing division also affirm the direct wording of the licence that EACH USER has the rights specified in that licence.
Matters of distribution are not dealt with in the EULA at all, that is a non-disclosure negotiation with Microsoft marketting, licencing, copyright permissions and the language division that controls the product.
The license only allows for installing the ddk (or a part of it) on machines at your own premesis. Distributing masm by itself or as part of another product isn't allowed under the terms of the license. Weather people chose to abide by the license is up to them.
QM is correct in the assertion that the licence only allows installation on the premises of the person who is using the product. Distribution as against re-distribution is not mentioned in the licence at all. Re-distribution is not allowed at all.
I address these types of topic to ensure that people who have a clear legal right to use the software are not mislead by the type of assertions that are made by various people who don't understand the extent of the rights extended by the owner.
I address these types of topic to ensure that people who have a clear legal right to use the software are not mislead by the type of assertions that are made by various people who don't understand the extent of the rights extended by the owner.
Ok, that is all about ml.exe 6.xx .
Get the free package of VC++ 2005 Express Beta, with ML.EXE 8.0.40607.16 , where the EULA is sweet , and there can be no doubt that you can use this MASM as you wish! Plus, you get a cool IDE.
:alright:
Get the free package of VC++ 2005 Express Beta, with ML.EXE 8.0.40607.16 , where the EULA is sweet , and there can be no doubt that you can use this MASM as you wish! Plus, you get a cool IDE.
:alright:
Thanks for the link Ultrano. This is the licence for the beta.
1. LICENSE.
(a) Subject to Recipient?s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Microsoft grants to Recipient a limited, non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-assignable license to install, reproduce and use the SOFTWARE on up to ten (10) computers residing on Recipient?s premises, solely for purposes of testing software programs that run in conjunction with the SOFTWARE, and to evaluate the SOFTWARE for the purpose of providing feedback thereon to Microsoft.
1. LICENSE.
(a) Subject to Recipient?s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Microsoft grants to Recipient a limited, non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-assignable license to install, reproduce and use the SOFTWARE on up to ten (10) computers residing on Recipient?s premises, solely for purposes of testing software programs that run in conjunction with the SOFTWARE, and to evaluate the SOFTWARE for the purpose of providing feedback thereon to Microsoft.
IS DESIGNED TO CEASE FUNCTIONING ON MARCH 1, 2005
on top of that :( . I guess I posted wrong info last night, I hope it was mostly because of the too much wine :| for which I'm sorry, people.
Meanwhile I'll continue using whatever freely downloadable published software I have here, and if I or anyone here gets treatened, I'll finally make some software to help us masm users continue coding (without porting!) + try to evolve asm.
> Re-distribution is not allowed at all.
Hmm, just this topic was the one in question in my first post. This guy obviously is unable to read! But I have given up now.
Hmm, just this topic was the one in question in my first post. This guy obviously is unable to read! But I have given up now.
and as i always said, not one really cares about gpl, gnu, open source, closed source, i do whatever i want and no txt file will tell me what to do thank you very much.
It might not matter to you, but people who write software for a living (or as a side income) have to consider such minor issues as copyright and licenses.
Re-distribution is not allowed at all.
Re-distribution was what the original poster of the thread that started this silly flamewar was pondering. Hutch may or may not have made some "secret negotiations" with Microsoft that allows him to distribute masm as part of his MASM32 project, but that certainly doesn't apply to everybody else...
The smartarse wisecrack with its reverse attribution was why you were mentioned. You are better to stick to technical assistance where you said something useful rather than try and dabble in areas that you are ignorant about.
I finally only have responsibilities to the people who use the MASM32 Project and I bother to ensure they understand the legal rights extended to them under licence from the owner, the rest do not matter.
In relation to f0dder again posting licence related material in the main forum with this information,
...and I'd still advise against bundling masm with anything. Microsoft tends not to reply to inquiries, but Microsoft Germany has replied and said the license doesn't allow it (check google archive of alt.lang.asm). Any further on the masm licensing can go to /dev/null or http://www.win32asmcommunity.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=20203 .
Note that the EULA enclosed in MASM32 does not allow any form of redistribution so you don't need to rely on second hand interpretations of people who post on UseNet.
Hutch may or may not have made some "secret negotiations" with Microsoft that allows him to distribute masm as part of his MASM32 project, but that certainly doesn't apply to everybody else..
Script kiddies dabbling with viruses and warez may have "secret negotiations" but matters of copyright and licencing are conducted in the normal business manner under non-disclosure.
Failure to comprehend the distinction indicates which side of the fence the last quoted comment comes from. :P
I finally only have responsibilities to the people who use the MASM32 Project and I bother to ensure they understand the legal rights extended to them under licence from the owner, the rest do not matter.
In relation to f0dder again posting licence related material in the main forum with this information,
...and I'd still advise against bundling masm with anything. Microsoft tends not to reply to inquiries, but Microsoft Germany has replied and said the license doesn't allow it (check google archive of alt.lang.asm). Any further on the masm licensing can go to /dev/null or http://www.win32asmcommunity.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=20203 .
Note that the EULA enclosed in MASM32 does not allow any form of redistribution so you don't need to rely on second hand interpretations of people who post on UseNet.
Hutch may or may not have made some "secret negotiations" with Microsoft that allows him to distribute masm as part of his MASM32 project, but that certainly doesn't apply to everybody else..
Script kiddies dabbling with viruses and warez may have "secret negotiations" but matters of copyright and licencing are conducted in the normal business manner under non-disclosure.
Failure to comprehend the distinction indicates which side of the fence the last quoted comment comes from. :P
calm down Hutch, I know you love Masm. Redistribution, I had distributed
the Service Pack 1 ver8.2 in my new site. I agree no modification from
the original file. I still think; Microsoft should give you the latest of ml,
bug reports should be open by them to fix bugs. If not then someone should develop masm. Also, it will be need an optimize old asssembly for masm, because the 16-bits architecture are still use, it can be handy for companies.
the Service Pack 1 ver8.2 in my new site. I agree no modification from
the original file. I still think; Microsoft should give you the latest of ml,
bug reports should be open by them to fix bugs. If not then someone should develop masm. Also, it will be need an optimize old asssembly for masm, because the 16-bits architecture are still use, it can be handy for companies.
Char,
The issues involved are legal ones that are not subject to opinion but the licence fom the owner.
The issues involved are legal ones that are not subject to opinion but the licence fom the owner.