Hey but distributing or contributing for the good of the product without the
form of modification. I remember when the Masm32 site had some bandwidth problems; Randall Hyde hosted the Masm32 with a different name. Isn't that legal? Although he change the name of it, thoughly I still
feel the Microsoft and Intel, that can only be download from the official site. I disagree with that part of the redistribution. If it contains the same
original data. You expect from people to use Masm32 and a friendly community to make big mirrors for the download of Masm32, so more people are able to get it. Even if you have the best speed of bandwidth,
people will keep distributing the original package without modifications
is the fact. Not the ones with modifications. I disagree with the GPL & the
open source programs, that they don't respect the main author who maded. But for the use to learn public domains are useful, like you put
the source code for masm32 compiler; they can't license it with that name or contain the same CODE.
Posted on 2004-12-28 17:56:31 by Statix Star
Char,

You are mixing up a few things here. The MASM32 project is available on a number of sites to reduce the bandwidth demand on any single site and all of the sites it is on are high bandwidth ones so that the load is distributed across them. Randy Hyde has helped out with the massive bandwidth demand for MASM32 by keeping it on his own site.

This had to be done because when I released version 8 on my old site, it took 180 gigabytes in the 1st month.

Now there is no real problem with someone giving a copy of MASM32 to someone else or even carrying it on their own site as long as it is complete but I don't authorise it for a number of reasons. Some sites want you to pay for downloads where MASM32 cannot be bought or sold. Then there is the bandwidth demand if a lot of people find out about the site. It can produce gigabytes of bandwidth that will run personal sites out of bandwidth.

The next problem is sites that I don't maintain myself often end up out of date when new versions are released. With only a couple of exceptions, the people who have helped out with MASM32 have set up an account on the server that carries it so I can upgrade the project from time to time.

What cannot be done is relicencing the project, absorbing it under another licence, redistributing parts of the project or trying to sell any of the project. These things are protected by a number of licences to make sure it does not happen. Also no-one should attempt to distribute a modified version of the project as it is all copyright software.
Posted on 2004-12-28 19:22:42 by hutch--
Just to clear up a few things: hutch--, how do you define "distribution" and "redistribution"? The way I understand the terms (and I am not a lawyer, etc), distribution means that a company (say, Microsoft), or an entity authorized by the company, distributes something (like a piece of software, for instance the Windows 98 DDK). This could be on the internet or via CDs, for free or commercially. The main point, I guess, being that it's from "an authorized source".

Re-distribution is when a third party (not authorized) re-distributes :) the software, either in full or parts of it. This could be a well-meaning person mirroring the Windows 98 DDK, or somebody distributing only parts of it (like masm and link, or header files).

All other issues aside, are those definitions, in this context, correct? (Albeit perhaps not 100% precise).
Posted on 2004-12-28 22:39:57 by f0dder
f0dder,

Its the extra step transfer that makes the difference. There is the source which is distribution and if someone obtains the files from the distribution and passes them on, they have redistributed the files.

"Redistribution" is addressed in the licence that comes with the software and the licence says it cannot be done.

In 1998 all I had to do was ring someone at Microsoft and it was easy enough to organise but over time as the conditions have changed, a number of people have tried to attack the project over its method of distribution.

In January 2004 I again contacted Microsoft Licencing and put the problem of the attacks from the GPL crew to them and the eventualy result was that they formally verified the EULA for the WIN98DDK in the context of it be directly distributed in the MASM32 project and indicated that users must comply with the licence to use their binaries.

What has pissed so many of the critics off is that they cannot control the project so they attack it instead when finally it is licenced freeeware that cannot be compromised so that someone else can make a buck out of it.

An almost endless number of people over time have tried to take it over, relicence it, pinch parts of it and the like for a variety of purposes when from the start the project was protected to ensure that it would always be free to anyone who wanted to try out writing MASM.

There is no problem with the project being available on a number of other sites as it still takes very large bandwidth to keep it available and it is covered by both its own licence and the EULA for the Microsoft binaries.
Posted on 2004-12-29 00:22:57 by hutch--

Its the extra step transfer that makes the difference. There is the source which is distribution and if someone obtains the files from the distribution and passes them on, they have redistributed the files.

So only the source examples are part of the "distribution"? What about the binaries then? You say you have permission from microsoft to do what you do, which is fine. But, generally, wouldn't taking ml and link and shipping them in any other way be redistribution?


"Redistribution" is addressed in the licence that comes with the software and the licence says it cannot be done.

How is "Redistribution" to be interpreted?
Posted on 2004-12-29 00:32:17 by f0dder
http://www.masmforum.com/simple/index.php?topic=171.0
The MASM32 Project was made possible in 1998 because Microsoft released the WIN98DDK with a EULA that made common use of the assembler and related files possible. From its origin, the MASM32 project has directly distributed the binaries under the conditions of the enclosed EULA and has never redistributed the files.


By making the binaries available you are re-distributing them. If you have been licensed by microsoft to distribute them, only then can you claim to be distributing them directly.
Posted on 2004-12-29 01:10:54 by QuantumMatrix1024
I guess the last two responses make sense to most people when I respond by teling them the agreement with the owner is non-disclosure and the owner requires compliance with the EULA. That is the sum total of my legal requirements from the owner.

Long ago I gave up trying to make sense to people who assume on the basis of what they can glean on the internet that they have something to say in terms of contract law.

To QM

By making the binaries available you are re-distributing them. If you have been licensed by microsoft to distribute them, only then can you claim to be distributing them directly.

Actually bother to read what I posted instead of trying to take parts of it out of context and fitting it into your own personal theory.

To f0dder,
same comment, actually read what I have posted in response to your last question. If you cannot undersand that, then grasp that the agreement is non-disclosure and not subject to re-interpretation. The EULA is subject to compliance by the end user.

Neither Microsoft nor myself are subject to external conditions fom people on the internet. I bother to respond because I act to ensure that no-one is mislead but Microsoft told me to ignore the nonsense.

I might add that I don't undertake to teach anyone contract law or the English language. If anyone has problems with the semantics of "distribute" as against "redistribute", they need to study the language to understand it. Apart from having worked with contracts for a very long time, I have very good contacts in Microsoft in Licencing and they really do have the expertise in contract law in relation to their own company's licence agreements.
Posted on 2004-12-29 01:24:46 by hutch--
If a party obtains some pirated software it will most likely contain the same license agreement which the user must agree to in order to install the software. Dose agreeing to the terms of a license which is invalid mean the end user has the rights of a valid license? Absolutly not! None can verify weather or not a license agreement other then the EULA exists between hutch and microsoft, if such a license agreement dose not exist then the Microsoft EULA contained in the MASM32 package is not a valid microsoft license.
Those using the MASM32 package (and has not previosly downloaded the windows 98 sdk to obtain a valid license) may or may not have a right to use the Microsoft software contained within it.
Posted on 2004-12-29 02:18:34 by QuantumMatrix1024
Your theory of semantics entail an infinite regression. You have the licence but you require a licence to use that licence. The extension of you comment is yet another licence to use that licence regressing to infinity.

If you think you have something to teach the Licencing division of Microsoft, feel free to do so. I respond for no other purpose than to advise those who use the project that Microsoft have verified the EULA and they have a written right to use the Microsoft binaries. I am bound to do nothing else than supply the binaries with the licence that goes with it.

As you will find if you bother to try and contact Microsoft, your opinion does not matter as they own the software and will deal with who they like under whatever conditions they like with indifference to your view.

Clearly you do not have the experience in contract law to make any comments here, nor do you have any negotiations with the owner of the software or their licencing division to back it up. Contract law is not determined by the capacity to post on the internet, a lesson you have yet to learn.
Posted on 2004-12-29 03:02:35 by hutch--
Your theory of semantics entail an infinite regression. You have the licence but you require a licence to use that licence. The extension of you comment is yet another licence to use that licence regressing to infinity.


If a license is valid then no further license is required. If a license is invalid (not obtained from Microsoft or somone authorised to issue that license) then that license is completly irelevent. Obraining a valid license isn't obraining a right to use the invalid license only a right to use the valid license.

Microft can do whatever they want with there intelectual property but if you distribute software with there permision you do so under the terms of a new agreement between you and Microsoft which has nothing to do with the EULA.

I just like to make sure that all software I use is legal. I have contacted Microsoft about this but am yet to receive a response.
Posted on 2004-12-29 03:18:43 by QuantumMatrix1024
Btw, about the bandwidth - will it be OK if when/if MASM9 comes out, to try p2p download, too (BitTorrent, eDonkey....). This way I think it'll be faster for people to download the package, and your site will take less bandwidth.

And sorry :oops:, but I couldn't understand clearly the essence of the conclusion, no matter how many times I read this thread (my bad):
Is it legal to make commercial software with MASM8 , if all the user has bought from Microsoft is just the OS ?
Posted on 2004-12-29 03:22:52 by Ultrano
Ultrano,

The licence for the beta 2005 is different, its purely for testing and giving feedback to Microsoft, it is not licenced for applications. As far as the bandwidth its OK at the moment but I must also ensure that it is a valid source under my control as it involes licenced software.

Each EULA is different and applies to the product it was attached to. The one in question here is the WIN98DDK EULA and while I have long ago given up trying to convince trolls about anything, Microsoft verified the EULA for the binaries in the project and require that I supply the EULA with the project.

To our friend with his endeavour to contact Microsoft, perhaps he could do us all a favour and hold his breath waiting. They can all bleed at the ears and the project will remain as it is, freeware that is not subject to any form of external control. :P
Posted on 2004-12-29 03:33:13 by hutch--

if someone obtains the files from the distribution and passes them on, they have redistributed the files.

So, you are redistributing masm+link, but have permission from Microsoft to do this. Let's forget about the MASM32 package for a while... the thread that spawned this thread was by a guy who was considering shipping masm+link with his own application, to use that as code generation. That would be redistribution too, and not allowed by the EULA, right? That's what I've been trying to figure out.
Posted on 2004-12-29 06:55:30 by f0dder
You still need to come to terms with your mistakes in semantics, "distribute" and "redistribute" are no the same term. "redistribution" under the description of the licence is not allowed. It is nearly impossible to type an ascii character tree in a variable pitch font so I will try it from a text editor.


distribute -->--,--->-- use < legal
|
|
'--->-- redistribute < illegal
|
|
'--->-- other < ?

Now with the member who posted the original question in the open forum, that is not allowed as the binaries are not redistributable. Microsoft in fact produce definitions in various licences of rights of redistribution for some products but the binaries in the WIN98DDK are not among them.

None the less, I fail to see the point of the repeated questions when I have published this infor for a reasonably long time in different places and had it verified by Microsoft as well. A troll will keep attacking the project if it suits their interests no matter what licence, authoriation or otherwise exists.

I make the effort to make sure no-one is mislead by the trolling as they have a clear legal right to use the software under the conditions of the EULA that is not conditional on any form of consensus from other people posting on the internet.
Posted on 2004-12-29 07:17:06 by hutch--
Ok, so you're in fact "distributing" rather than "redistributing" the binaries? :)


Now with the member who posted the original question in the open forum, that is not allowed as the binaries are not redistributable.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

Btw, you may want to mention at the masm32 page and in the readme files that you have been granted permission by microsoft to (re?)distribute the binaries, to avoid all this confusion... there's been many a people pondering t the legal status of the masm+link binaries from MASM32, not to troll but worrying about "their own ass"...
Posted on 2004-12-29 07:23:00 by f0dder
I think he's already made it clear in the License page of his site (dated yesterday). Thanks, hutch (for the myriad time)
Posted on 2004-12-29 08:29:38 by Ultrano
Ultrano, I can't see any mention of the legal status of the Microsoft binaries in http://www.masm32.com/mlicence.htm . I'm not saying (and I don't think) that hutch-- is lying, it would just be nice to see explicitly stated that Microsoft has granted him the permission to (re?)distribute the binaries. I understand if hutch cannot provide the conversations with Microsoft because of non-disclosure agreements or whatever, but A simple "Microsoft has authorized the inclusion of Microsoft binaries in the MASM32 project" notice would be nice.

Btw hutch--, I noticed a small typo, grep for "completely frestanding" in the license and fix it :)
Posted on 2004-12-29 08:42:09 by f0dder
Thanks for the typo, its a standard error I make with membrane contact keyboards.

The licence published at masm32.com is for the MASM32 project, not for the Microsoft binaries. After having Microsoft Licencing scan the version that was there before, they suggested a number of changes that I have put in place.

The problem with going down the road of nested licencing is the next troll will ask for the proof of that statement and if you produce it, they then ask for the proof of that statement regressing to infinite. I don't intend to bother addressing even one level of licence nesting as it serves no purpose.

What Microsoft require is their own licence for their own binaries and that has been done since 1998 so there is little else I can do as I only respond to the the owner here, not anyone else.

What I have published ad nauseum over the last year is that Microsoft have formally verified the EULA in the context where it occurs in the MASM32 project.
Posted on 2004-12-29 17:17:43 by hutch--
Sorta makes sense, I guess... so the final thing to note is that for other people to include microsoft binaries, they would have to ask microsoft for permission, right? (since the right doesn't seem to be granted by the EULA).
Posted on 2004-12-29 17:56:57 by f0dder
Basically yes, they would need to apply to Microsoft Licencing explaining ALL of the requirements and what they are going to use it for. Microsoft tend to be OK on educational and copyright freeware projects but will not licence their binaries for any form of open source project at all.

I don't know if they would licence the binaries for a commercial project without substantial royalties though.
Posted on 2004-12-29 19:17:43 by hutch--