Re: Herbert, Corporate Laywer ?
Betov
@posting.google.com:
> [...]
n.th Post on the same subjetc: It must really touch you
where it hurts you. :)
If you don't like to be an illegal receller of MicroSoft
Product... why do you do it?
:)) :)) :))
Betov.
Herbert Kleebauer
>
> As it appears that Herbert has been elevated to the status of
> Corporate Laywer by the Betov camp and is now being used as a
> reference for the legallity of the MASM32 project, a number of
> questions need to be asked of Herbert based on the information he has
> posted in this newsgroup recently.
Seems you can't stop this discussion. As I already said it STARTED
because of your behavior at the beginning of the year, but now
it has nothing to do with you anymore. All I want is to get an
official answer from Microsoft USA whether it is legal to
download MASM from the links given at www.masm32.com or not.
And if it is not legal, why Microsoft tolerates software piracy.
Here the complete log:
=====================================================================
30.01.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to perm...@microsoft.com with the question whether it is
legal to download and use MASM32 from the links given in
www.masm32.com.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
10.02.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to ser...@service.microsoft.de (Microsoft Germany) with the same
question.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
10.02.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from pri...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany)
to acknowledge the receipt of the mail.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
01.03.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to perm...@microsoft.com with the question why I don' get
an answer for my mail from 30.01.2004.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
01.04.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to pri...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany)
perm...@microsoft.com
ip...@microsoft.com
pir...@microsoft.com
with the question, why I still get no answer after 2 month.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
02.04.2004 |
-----------+
Mail from perm...@microsoft.com with an apologize for the
delay in answering the question.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
02.04.2004 |
-----------+
Mail from perm...@microsoft.com with the content:
Hello,
Unfortunately, we do not permit third party distribution of kits.
Archival copies of kits are available through MSDN subscription.
Thank you,
Permissions/Copyright
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
17.06.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to perm...@microsoft.com that I don't want to distribute MASM,
but I would like to know whether it is legal to DOWNLOAD MASM.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
15.09.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to pir...@microsoft.com with the question why Microsoft
can't answer the simple question whether it is legal to
download and us MASM for more than six month now.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
16.09.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from pir...@microsoft.com to acknowledge the
receipt of the mail.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
18.09.2004 |
-----------+
Mail from pir...@microsoft.com with the content:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the Microsoft Anti-Piracy Team.
We would like to talk to you concerning this situation, for U.S. and
Canada, please contact us at 1-800-RU-LEGIT (1-800-785-3448) and select
option number 4.
For any other region, please provide us with your location so we may
forward your information to the appropriate department.
You may also visit our Internet site on http://www.microsoft.com/piracy
and http://www.howtotell.com to review additional information on
recognizing genuine Microsoft product and Microsoft's licensing
policies.
Again, thank you for your interest in our anti-piracy campaign.
Microsoft Corporation
Worldwide Sales Group
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
20.09.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to pir...@microsoft.com with the information, that I'm not
from U.S. or Canada and all I want is a authoritative YES or NO
to the question: Is it legal to download the Microsoft assembler
MASM32 from one of the links given in http://www.masm32.com .
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
21.09.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from pir...@microsoft.com to acknowledge the
receipt of the mail.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
23.09.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from msd...@microsoft.com (Germany) to acknowledge
the receipt of the mail.
(Seems Microsoft USA has forwarded my mail to Microsoft Germany)
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
23.09.2004 |
-----------+
Mail from msd...@microsoft.com (Germany) with the translated content:
We don't see any problem to use the tools available at www.wasm32.com
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
23.09.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to msd...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany) with the information
that this "tools" contain:
Microsoft (R) Macro Assembler Version 6.14.8444
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1981-1997. All rights reserved.
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 5.12.8078
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1992-1998. All rights reserved.
and Microsoft USA said in the mail from 02.04.2004:
"Unfortunately, we do not permit third party distribution of kits."
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
23.09.2004 |
-----------+
Mail from msd...@microsoft.com (Germany) with the translated content:
I forward your question to the legal department, you will get an
answer from them.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
15.10.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to msd...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany) with the question
why I don't get an answer from the legal department.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
04.11.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to msd...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany) with the request
to give me an email address of the legal department.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
04.11.2004 |
-----------+
Mail from msd...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany) with the content:
Sehr geehrter Herr Kleebauer,
vielen Dank für Ihre Mail.
Ich habe heute erneut mit unserer Rechtsabteilung gesprochen
und nun folgende Antwort erhalten:
Deine Anwort an den Kunden „Nach unserer Recherche spricht
nichts gegen die Verwendung von dem auf dieser Seite angebotenem
Tool. Es werden von Seiten Microsoft keine Rechte verletzt.“
stimmt so leider nicht. Denn, wie die US-Kollegen ganz richtig
angemerkt haben: „ Unfortunately, we do not permit third party
distribution of kits.“ Damit ist gemeint, dass das Downloadangebot
– sprich: Distribution - dieser Microsoft-Software von Dritten
nicht gestattet ist. Weiter im Text heisst es „ Archival copies
of kits are available through MSDN subscription.” Das bedeutet,
dass auch Microsoft dieses Tool nicht kostenlos zur Verfügung
stellt, sondern nur im Rahmen eines (natürlich kostenpflichtigen)
MSDN-Abos.
Die Antwort, welche Sie aus den USA erhalten haben war somit
schon richtig, die Nutzung dieses Tools in dieser Form ist nicht
gestattet.
Ich hoffe, Ihre Frage ist hiermit beantwortet worden.
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Monika Minisini
Microsoft Deutschland GmbH
Copyright Division
Email: msd...@microsoft.com
Translation: It is illegal to download and use MASM
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
08.11.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to in...@bsa.de that Microsoft tolerates a download site which
is illegal distributing copyrighted software.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
25.11.2004 |
-----------+
Mail to perm...@microsoft.com
ip...@microsoft.com
pir...@microsoft.com
msd...@microsoft.com (Microsoft Germany)
with the information that Microsoft USA says, that it is not allowed
to distribute MASM and Microsoft Germany says, that it also is illegal
to download and use MASM but the owner of www.masm32.com still claims
that all is legal. I also said, that I informed BSA and appended
a posting from Hutch in alt.lang.asm
=====================================================================
25.11.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from msd...@microsoft.com (Germany) to acknowledge
to acknowledge the receipt of the mail.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
29.11.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from pir...@microsoft.com to acknowledge the
receipt of the mail.
=====================================================================
No answer till now.
hutch--
Corporate Laywer by the Betov camp and is now being used as a
reference for the legallity of the MASM32 project, a number of
questions need to be asked of Herbert based on the information he has
posted in this newsgroup recently.
Herbert has claimed that when he first approached Microsoft in Germany
that someone looked at the MASM32 site and said that they saw nothing
wrong with the use of the Microsoft tools. Herbert then claims that he
informed the same person of additional information and that they
replied that it is illegal to download MASM32 if those conditions are
corect.
To further his claims about the MASM32 site, Herbert has tried for
somewhere short of a year to convince the parent company in the US but
according to his own postings, Microsoft have refused to respond to
him and he has recently reported Microsoft to another organisation for
supporting software piracy of their own products.
Now in contrast when I contacted the licencing division of Microsoft
around the beginning of the year, not only did I receive useful legal
information but another division that handles Microsoft copyright
issues responded within weeks by verifying the WIN98DDK EULA in the
context that I have distributed a number of binaries from in
accordance with that EULA.
Now in accordance with the conditions of the WIN98DDK where I have
distributed a number of Microsoft binaries under the conditions of
that EULA, I discharge the responsibility contained in the following
clause of the EULA,
Faced with the contrast between the friendly and helpful support I
have had from Microsoft and Herbert being ignored for nearly a year,
it does not take any genius to see what has happened here, Herbert is
being treated like a nuisance and is being ignored by the parent
company Microsoft in the US.
Now in that Herbert claims he has reported Microsoft to another
organisation for supporting software piracy of their own products by
not acting according to his wishes, I am bound under the conditions of
the EULA to actively defend Microsoft against such nonsense.
The EULA for the WIN98DDK has this clause which I respond to on behalf
of the massive number of people who downloaded and use the MASM32
project.
=============================================
(e) you indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and
against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise
or result from the use or distribution of your Application.
=============================================
In doing so, I unconditionally reject the accusations that Herbert has
made against Microsoft and warn anyone against taking any notice of
what he has said as he evidently does not have the support of
Microsoft in his views of licencing and his actions in trying to
report Microsoft to another organisation.
Contrast the availability of the MASM32 project as a fully legal
download for over 6 years to Herbert's failure to convince Microsoft
of anything to the extent that they ignore him and he is now trying to
report them to another organisation.
The only obligation I have from the advice given to me from the
licencing division of Mcrosoft is that I must include the EULA with
the project and that anyone who uses the Microsoft binaries must
comply with the licence. This was done the right way the first time in
1998 and has been subsequently verified by Microsoft at my request.
Members of this group are in a position to judge what Herbert has said
and contrast it to the availability of the MASM32 project 6 years down
the track after verification of the EULA in the context of the MASM32
project.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
hutch--
> Seems you can't stop this discussion. As I already said it STARTED
> because of your behavior at the beginning of the year, but now
> it has nothing to do with you anymore.
Two things here, I did not start the licencing wars but you buddy
Betov did years ago in the win32asm forum when I had never even heard
of him. When you jump up onto your high horse, you need to take steps
not to fall off the other side and this is what you have done.
> All I want is to get an
> official answer from Microsoft USA whether it is legal to
> download MASM from the links given at www.masm32.com or not.
> And if it is not legal, why Microsoft tolerates software piracy.
I hear what you say but I see what you do and my response is an
automatic one in discharge of a responsibility I have as the
maintainer of the MASM32 project on behalf of the massive number of
people who have downloaded and use licenced Microsoft software.
Formally the responsibility is contained in the following clause from
the WIN98DDK.
========================================================
(e) you indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and
against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise
or result from the use or distribution of your Application.
========================================================
I make it clear that I unconditionally repudiate your allegations
against Microsoft of any form of misconduct whatsoever and this
includes you attempts to accuse Microsoft of supporting software
piracy of any form and in particular their own copyright software.
I have nothing against you personally but you have chosen to intercede
on Betov's behalf as per your comments in your last post and in doing
so you have become a component of Betov's endless attacks on Microsoft
which includes using both myself and the project I maintain as a proxy
to attack Microsoft.
In doing so you associate yourself with the sum total of garbage that
has come out of Betov over time which includes nonsense like,
1. Microsoft is a criminal organisation.
2. MASM has been legally stolen with Microsoft's consent.
3. Betov's direct support for an imitation of Windows.
4. Betov's illegal use of copyright software.
5. Betov's views on the use of any copyright software.
6. Betov's stated desire to shoot Americans if he could.
There is an endless supply of this garbage and by taking the actions
you have you have climbed into bed with a loonie like Betov.
In undertaking to discharge my legal responsibilities under the EULA
for the WIN98DDK, I will do whatever is necessary to succeed in the
discharge of that responsibility and if it is at your expense, that is
unfortunate as you have made your choices in what you suport.
Betov
@posting.google.com:
> You ignorance of the contract law shows. Its not that your opinion
> matters but I will discharge my responsibilities under the EULA at
> your expense until the noise stops.
You mean until you will have the priviledge of starting
one another thread and that nobody would answer tho the
insane bullshits, from an illegal MASM receller?
Dream on, Dictionary-Ass... :)
Betov.
Randall Hyde
>
> Seems you can't stop this discussion. As I already said it STARTED
> because of your behavior at the beginning of the year, but now
> it has nothing to do with you anymore. All I want is to get an
> official answer from Microsoft USA whether it is legal to
> download MASM from the links given at www.masm32.com or not.
> And if it is not legal, why Microsoft tolerates software piracy.
Why does the FSF tolerate piracy of all their products?
Why don't you report them?
Herbert, do you have no understanding whatsoever of copyright law?
The word itself tells you that the owner controls the "right to copy".
If the owner allows someone to copy their work, then that's the owner's
right. Accusing Microsoft of supporting piracy of their own products
because they allow people to copy MASM for free is about as ludicrous
as accusing FSF of the same thing.
You've made your case against MASM32 to Microsoft.
Steve has made his case for MASM32 to Microsoft.
Now it's totally up to Microsoft to deal with the issue.
If they want to ignore the MASM32 distribution (or even
condone it), it's not up to you to say this isn't right. They
own the copyright, they have the right to decide how to
enforce it. Given that there is absolutely no profit to be
had from MASM in any way, shape, or form, I suspect
that they're happiest ignoring the whole thing. Anything
else would cost them money.
Keep in mind, the whole reason MASM is *not* sold today is
not, as Rene suspects, some conspiracy on Microsoft's part to
kill off assembly language. MASM is not sold today because
Microsoft cannot make a reasonable amount of money selling it.
However, the need for some assembly code, now and then,
still exists. That's why Microsoft has chosen to distribute
MASM for free, and it's why they probably don't care one
whit about what Steve is doing with it. Any thought they have
to put into it simply costs them money and they don't want to
spend the money on it. I have to agree with Steve, you're
just a nuisence to them.
No doubt, at some point in the future Microsoft could
very well change their mind about allowing the distribution
of MASM in MASM32. Should Steve be given instructions
to cease and desist, I would hope that he has the wisdom
to do exactly that. While I do question the ethics of the
distribution of MASM in the MASM32 package prior to
Steve's contacts with Microsoft, it is reassuring that he
*has* taken the effort to follow up with Microsoft on this
matter.
BTW, MASM32 isn't the only package where MASM
is distributed free of charge. There are some college-level
textbooks that distribute a free copy of MASM with the
book. MASM would have been distributed on the "Art
of Assembly" CD-ROM, in fact, if we had received
permission to do so in time for publication (we contacted
Microsoft too late in the publication schedule to get
permission, but they tend to grant permission for such
projects). Between the textbooks currently in print
and the Win32 DDK, Microsoft is giving the code out
left and right. Do you think they really care if someone
gets MASM from another source, thus saving them a little
bandwidth on their Web site (where the download is free)?
See http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/pctools.html
for all the details of a free download from Microsoft's site.
The big concern I have with the MASM32 package is that
Microsoft could decide to pull the plug at any time. That's
one of the main reasons I've supported FASM with HLA
and I'm slowing moving the HLA distribution towards the
"freeHLA" package that uses HLA rather than MASM.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
hutch--
> n.th Post on the same subjetc: It must really touch you
> where it hurts you. :)
>
> If you don't like to be an illegal receller of MicroSoft
> Product... why do you do it?
You ignorance of the contract law shows. Its not that your opinion
matters but I will discharge my responsibilities under the EULA at
your expense until the noise stops.
Regards,
Herbert Kleebauer
> Herbert, do you have no understanding whatsoever of copyright law?
> The word itself tells you that the owner controls the "right to copy".
> If the owner allows someone to copy their work, then that's the owner's
> right. Accusing Microsoft of supporting piracy of their own products
> because they allow people to copy MASM for free is about as ludicrous
> as accusing FSF of the same thing.
All I want from Microsoft is, that they official tell me,
that I do nothing illegal when I download MASM from the
links given in www.masm32.com. But I'm not able to get
this statement from Microsoft for nearly a year now.
I got two statements, one from Microsoft USA:
Hello,
Unfortunately, we do not permit third party distribution of kits.
Archival copies of kits are available through MSDN subscription.
Thank you,
Permissions/Copyright
How should I interpret this? It is illegal to distribute it, but
is it also illegal to download it? Microsoft USA refuses give
me an answer.
The other statement is from Microsoft Germany:
Denn, wie die US-Kollegen ganz richtig
angemerkt haben: „ Unfortunately, we do not permit third party
distribution of kits.“ Damit ist gemeint, dass das Downloadangebot
– sprich: Distribution - dieser Microsoft-Software von Dritten
nicht gestattet ist. Weiter im Text heisst es „ Archival copies
of kits are available through MSDN subscription.” Das bedeutet,
dass auch Microsoft dieses Tool nicht kostenlos zur Verfügung
stellt, sondern nur im Rahmen eines (natürlich kostenpflichtigen)
MSDN-Abos.
Die Antwort, welche Sie aus den USA erhalten haben war somit
schon richtig, die Nutzung dieses Tools in dieser Form ist nicht
gestattet.
Which says, I'm not allowed to download and use MASM from the links
given in www.masm32.com
So we have the situation, that Microsoft claims, that it is not
allowed to distribute MASM and at least Microsoft Germany says it
is also not allowed to download MASM. And on the other side
Microsoft knows about the download sites and tolerate them.
And this is support oft software piracy. Either they allow
the download or they close the download sites.
> No doubt, at some point in the future Microsoft could
> very well change their mind about allowing the distribution
> of MASM in MASM32.
They currently don't allow the redistribution. Read the mail
from Microsoft.
> gets MASM from another source, thus saving them a little
> bandwidth on their Web site (where the download is free)?
If the statement from Microsoft Germany is correct, you
can't download MASM from Microsoft's server without
subscribing to MSDN (which isn't free).
Randall Hyde
"Herbert Kleebauer" <kl...@unibwm.de> wrote in message
news:41B0BF5B...@unibwm.de...
>
> All I want from Microsoft is, that they official tell me,
> that I do nothing illegal when I download MASM from the
> links given in www.masm32.com. But I'm not able to get
> this statement from Microsoft for nearly a year now.
I share your concern. Not directly, of course, as I own
a legal version of MASM, but because I recommend that
people download MASM from hutch's site and if there
is a legal concern here, I would switch back to suggesting
the link into Microsoft's on web site.
However, as an individual, you don't have to be concerned
about this at all. Just toss the copy of MASM that comes with
MASM32 and download MASM directly from the Microsoft
web site, directions for doing so are maintained on this page:
http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/pctools.html
This download comes directly from Microsoft, so I would
assume that as long as you agree to the EULA, then there
is *no* legal problem using this particular piece of code.
> I got two statements, one from Microsoft USA:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Unfortunately, we do not permit third party distribution of kits.
> Archival copies of kits are available through MSDN subscription.
>
> Thank you,
> Permissions/Copyright
>
> How should I interpret this? It is illegal to distribute it, but
> is it also illegal to download it? Microsoft USA refuses give
> me an answer.
>
> The other statement is from Microsoft Germany:
>
> Denn, wie die US-Kollegen ganz richtig
> angemerkt haben: " Unfortunately, we do not permit third party
> distribution of kits." Damit ist gemeint, dass das Downloadangebot
> - sprich: Distribution - dieser Microsoft-Software von Dritten
> nicht gestattet ist. Weiter im Text heisst es " Archival copies
> of kits are available through MSDN subscription." Das bedeutet,
> dass auch Microsoft dieses Tool nicht kostenlos zur Verfügung
> stellt, sondern nur im Rahmen eines (natürlich kostenpflichtigen)
> MSDN-Abos.
>
> Die Antwort, welche Sie aus den USA erhalten haben war somit
> schon richtig, die Nutzung dieses Tools in dieser Form ist nicht
> gestattet.
>
> Which says, I'm not allowed to download and use MASM from the links
> given in www.masm32.com
Don't forget, Microsoft is a huge organization. The left hand doesn't
know what the right hand is doing half the time. Clearly the first
response you've gotten back is incorrect. You can download DDK
kits from Microsoft's web site without an MSDN subscription (see the
link above). Not being able to read German, I have to take your word on the
translation, but again these people clearly don't know what Microsoft
is doing in the U.S.
>
> So we have the situation, that Microsoft claims, that it is not
> allowed to distribute MASM and at least Microsoft Germany says it
> is also not allowed to download MASM. And on the other side
> Microsoft knows about the download sites and tolerate them.
> And this is support oft software piracy. Either they allow
> the download or they close the download sites.
>
>
>
> > No doubt, at some point in the future Microsoft could
> > very well change their mind about allowing the distribution
> > of MASM in MASM32.
>
> They currently don't allow the redistribution. Read the mail
> from Microsoft.
>
>
> > gets MASM from another source, thus saving them a little
> > bandwidth on their Web site (where the download is free)?
>
> If the statement from Microsoft Germany is correct, you
> can't download MASM from Microsoft's server without
> subscribing to MSDN (which isn't free).
Jon Kerwin has done a great job of maintaining links into the
Microsoft Web site where people could download a copy of
the MASM program. In Dec 2001 and Jan 2002 he had a
series of email exchanges between himself and Terry Leeper
of Microsoft (who was the program manager for VC++ at
the time, and this is the group that is responsible for maintaining
MASM, according to a recent roommate who used to work
at Microsoft). You can view the email exchange yourself
at http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/leeper.html, though
I'll repost some pertinent emails here:
Mon, Dec 17, 2001:
Hi Jon,
I was referenced to your webpage
http://www.easystreet.com/~jkirwan/pctools.html by some folks using MASM
and I had a couple of comments. First of all, I wanted to thank you for
your support of MASM. We at Microsoft recognize this as an important
product and a sizable user base. Secondly, I would like to ask you to
only point folks to MASM via the DDK and avoiding non-Microsoft sites.
This keeps users on the latest version as we are not shipping MASM as a
stand-alone product anymore. Please feel free to contact me regarding
this.
Terry Leeper
Program Manager
Visual C++
Tue, Dec 18, 2001
Jon,
It was good talking to a guy who still likes assembly (like me)! My
comments are inline....
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Kirwan [mailto:jki...@easystreet.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:33 PM
To: Terry Leeper
Subject: Re: MASM references
Thanks much for the call, today. Appreciated.
I'd like to summarize my understanding of our conversation and then to
ask a few questions:
(1) Microsoft currently supports ML as part of the VC++ product set,
not as a separate product on its own right.
*That is correct.*
(2) Although ML is currently available in the DDKs from Microsoft web
sites, that mechanism is still under review and may change soon
(perhaps prior to or near the release of VC++ 7.0 on Feb 13th, next
year.) It is possible that the only mechanism remaining will be to
purchase VC++ 7.0. It is possible that some other method may become
available.
*No. DDKs will always carry MASM, which is why I was bringing to your
attention. We are looking at other methods than VC7 and DDK.*
(3) There was a "licensing issue" of sorts which brought all this to
your attention recently, regarding the lack of a licensing statement
meeting Microsoft policies on ML.
*There was a missing MS EULA in some of the links. I was also concerned
with a non-MS link.*
(4) Microsoft does intend, at this time, to continue providing
updates to ML and making it available through the VC++ product
distribution. Other methods of distribution are still under review.
*Correct. ML is not going away.*
(5) On request, Microsoft does sometimes provide ML for use by
universities and colleges for schoolwide educational purposes.
*Correct.*
(6) The Feb. 13th release version of 7.0 VC++ still won't include
partial template specialization. However, a later release (not so
delayed as the 6.0 products might lead one to believe) will likely
include it.
*Correct. A PTS-enabled release will be before 8.0 ships.*
(7) There is some work going on with the VC++ linker product which
may support embedded purposes. But no specific information, at this
time. (It still lacks the features found in GNU's ld.)
*Can you be specific wrt what functionality you would like the linker to
do?*
Some questions:
(A) Does your group still produce the version 6.1 boxed sets they
used to produce, a few years ago? Can I get my local college book
store to purchase them for their shelves? Or is the packaging no
longer in production, at all?
*No, we don't produce that anymore.*
(B) Can your group consider the possibility of releasing into the
public domain some fixed, older version of MASM or ML together with a
.DOC or .PDF of the manual set? I'm thinking here of Microsoft's
release of the 6.10 product or similar. No need to worry about
updating it into the future, since the purpose would be primarily for
personal, educational use and possibly for embedded product use.
*It's possible. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on the matter.*
.. .. ..
I hope you don't mind me asking these questions. I commit about 300
to 500 hours a year as a volunteer, after-hour science teacher and on
occasion, I get a few students wondering how they can learn assembly
language mostly on their own. When I think about answering that
question, I really wish I could point them to the ML program and to
the documentation for it -- the docs were excellent references and
very helpful; better than much else out there. Randall Hyde's AofA is
an excellent supplement, but it would be much better to have the
Microsoft documents available for their use. The bare ML program just
doesn't cut it.
*I taught assembly at the university level when I was in grad school, so
I like ML, too! Your requests are duly noted.*
---------------------------------------------------
Again, Terry Leeper does not speak for Microsoft's legal department,
but as the program manager for the VC++ group (at least, at the time,
I have no idea if he's still in charge today), you'd think he'd have a good
idea about what Microsoft intended to do with MASM.
A couple of interesting points --
1. Terry wanted the links to Microsoft's site, not because
of piracy or legal issues, but because he wanted to make
sure people were downloading the latest copy of MASM.
2. Terry pointed out that Microsoft intends to support MASM forever.
3. At the time (this *was* 2001), there was still a way to purchase
MASM -- as part of the academic VC compiler package. IIRC,
Microsoft gives away a comparable thing for free today (including
MASM).
A few years ago, getting MASM from Microsoft was a pain in the
butt. You had to download a huge DDK zip file from Microsoft
(40 MB, IIRC) and extract MASM from that. A very painful way
to get MASM from Microsoft. Today, you can download a VC++
"processor pack" (see the URL above) and obtain MASM that way.
This even includes the MASM reference manual, something you
don't get in the MASM32 package.
Terry, obviously, is aware of external sites that provide MASM
downloads. If this was a *real* issue for Microsoft, you'd think
that, as the program manager in charge of MASM, he'd have
the legal department all over those sites (like hutch's). Instead,
Terry's primary concern was that he wants people to get the code from
the Microsoft site to ensure that they have the latest version.
One could easily argue that the MASM32's inclusion of MASM
is not an ethical thing to do. OTOH, those in charge of MASM
at Microsoft don't seem to care that much. Indeed, their primary
concern seems to be in the support that they would have to
provide to people (who, for example, might download an
older version of the assembler).
The bottom line is this: to be perfectly ethical, I would recommend
that if someone wants to do Win32 programming with the MASM32
package, then they should download the VC++ processor package
at the URL given earlier and use that version of MASM. Oh, and
btw, I didn't see the onerous EULA that comes with the Win98 DDK
in the VC++ processor package :-) (take note of this, Steve)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
hutch--
The problem is you already have your response from Microsoft.
---------------------
=====================================================================
29.11.2004 |
-----------+
Autoreply from pir...@microsoft.com to acknowledge the
receipt of the mail.
=====================================================================
No answer till now.
---------------------
You just don't like the answer.
Where you will run into problems is when you continue to use myself
and the project I maintain as a proxy to attack Microsoft on Betov's
behalf. Microsoft have delivered in terms of permission to use their
binaries for years for Windows developers so in response, I will
continue to exercise my responsibilities on behalf of the massive
number of people who use the MASM32 project to repudiate your attack
on Microsoft complete with the allegations you have publically posted.
By association with Betov you have made your bed, now you must lie in
it.
Regads,
Herbert Kleebauer
> about this at all. Just toss the copy of MASM that comes with
> MASM32 and download MASM directly from the Microsoft
> web site, directions for doing so are maintained on this page:
> http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/pctools.html
> This download comes directly from Microsoft, so I would
> assume that as long as you agree to the EULA, then there
> is *no* legal problem using this particular piece of code.
Did you read the EULA?
==================================================================================
The Visual C++ 6.0 Processor Pack ("Processor Pack") contains updated versions of
one or more of the software products listed below. This document shall serve as
an addendum ("Addendum") to the Microsoft End User License Agreement ("EULA") you
acquired with version 6.0 or later of any of the Microsoft products listed below.
In addition, to install and use the Processor Pack, you must have Service Pack 5
for either of the products listed below. Except as provided in this Addendum, the
Processor Pack is licensed under the same terms and conditions contained in the EULA.
Visual Studio
Visual C++
1. If you do not agree to be bound by the terms of the EULA and this Addendum,
you are not authorized to use the Processor Pack.
2. The Processor Pack and all of its contents are redistributable. Your use of
any such files is subject to all terms and conditions of the EULA that relate
to "Redistributables" (as defined in the EULA).
3. Microsoft also grants you the nonexclusive right to copy and distribute the
Processor Pack itself and all of its contents to any validly licensed end
user of any of the products listed above.
==================================================================================
As I understand this, you are only allowed to install and use this pack if
you are a legal owner of Visual Studio or Visual C++. And point 3 above says,
you are only allowed to redistribute this Processor Pack to people who have
a valid license for either Visual Studio or Visual C++. So this is not
a legal way to get MASM for free.
Because there once was a thread about a h2inc converter, there is also
a h2inc program included in the Processor Pack:
==================================================================================
H2INC
The H2INC utility converts C header (.h) files into MASM-compatible include
(.inc) files. It translates declarations and prototypes but does not translate code.
==================================================================================
Randall Hyde
> Randall Hyde wrote:
> > "Herbert Kleebauer" <kl...@unibwm.de> wrote in message
>
> > However, as an individual, you don't have to be concerned
> > about this at all. Just toss the copy of MASM that comes with
> > MASM32 and download MASM directly from the Microsoft
> > web site, directions for doing so are maintained on this page:
> > http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/pctools.html
> > This download comes directly from Microsoft, so I would
> > assume that as long as you agree to the EULA, then there
> > is *no* legal problem using this particular piece of code.
>
> Did you read the EULA?
No, couldn't find it :-)
>
============================================================================
Hmmm...
I as understand this, you are only allowed to install and use the package
if you agree to the EULA for VC++.
Also, points two and three seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, point
two
suggests that all of the files in the processor pack are redistributable. As
ML.EXE
and ML.ERR are part of the processor pack, this would suggest that they are
redistributable according to the "redistributables" clause of the VS or VC
packages.
Point three seems to be irrelevant, given point two.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Herbert Kleebauer
> > Did you read the EULA?
>
> No, couldn't find it :-)
>
==========================================================
The Visual C++ 6.0 Processor Pack ("Processor Pack")
Visual Studio
Visual C++
==========================================================
Nice trick to wrap the lines of the EULA to make it unreadable.
But even then it is clearly obvious that your interpretation
is wrong.
> Hmmm...
> I as understand this, you are only allowed to install and use the package
> if you agree to the EULA for VC++.
"The Visual C++ 6.0 Processor Pack ("Processor Pack")
contains updated versions of one or more of the software
products listed below" clearly states, that this is an
update to Visual Studio or Visual C++ (the pack only installs
if this software is installed, you have to use a trick to
extract MASM from this pack without this software installed).
This binds the legal use of the pack to the legal use of
Visual Studio or Visual C++. You also can't download SP2
of XP and claim that you can use any program in this SP
even if you don't have a valid XP license. You make
the same mistake as hutch. The EULA does only matter
if you have a valid license. To comply with the EULA
doesn't give you a valid license.
> Also, points two and three seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, point two
> suggests that all of the files in the processor pack are redistributable. As ML.EXE
> and ML.ERR are part of the processor pack, this would suggest that they are
> redistributable according to the "redistributables" clause of the VS or VC
> packages.
No conflict at all. "Except as provided in this Addendum,
the Processor Pack is licensed under the same terms and
conditions contained in the EULA". This states, that the
EULA of Visual Studio or Visual C++ is extended (this
again makes it clear, that the use of pack is only legal
if there is a legal use of Visual Studio or Visual C++)
by the given three points. Point 2 defines the status
of the pack and it's content as "redistributable", so
anything stated in the EULA about restributables is also
valid for this pack. Point 3 restricts the redistribution
to people with a valid license for Visual Studio or
Visual C++. Because of the "Except as provided in this
Addendum, the Processor Pack is licensed under the same
terms and conditions contained in the EULA" this restriction
is valid even if there is something else stated about
redistributables in the EULA.
> Point three seems to be irrelevant, given point two.
Reality and wishes can be very different. The
Visual C++ 6.0 Processor Pack is surely no legal
way to get a free copy of MASM.
arargh4...@now.at.arargh.com
<rand...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> As I understand this, you are only allowed to install and use this pack if
>> you are a legal owner of Visual Studio or Visual C++. And point 3 above
>says,
>> you are only allowed to redistribute this Processor Pack to people who
>have
>> a valid license for either Visual Studio or Visual C++. So this is not
>> a legal way to get MASM for free.
>
>Hmmm...
>I as understand this, you are only allowed to install and use the package
>if you agree to the EULA for VC++.
>
>Also, points two and three seem to be in conflict. On the one hand, point
>two
>suggests that all of the files in the processor pack are redistributable. As
>ML.EXE
>and ML.ERR are part of the processor pack, this would suggest that they are
>redistributable according to the "redistributables" clause of the VS or VC
>packages.
>Point three seems to be irrelevant, given point two.
I think that this is the relevant paragraph from the VS6 EULA:
3.2 Redistributable Code-Standard. Microsoft grants you a
nonexclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute the
object code form of any portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT listed in
REDIST.TXT ("Redistributable Code"). NOTE: certain Redistributable
Code may be subject to the restrictions in Section 3.3 if it is also
identified as "Limited Use Redistributable Code."
Neither ML.EXE nor ML.ERR are listed in REDIST.TXT.
--
Arargh412 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
Randall Hyde
> Reality and wishes can be very different. The
> Visual C++ 6.0 Processor Pack is surely no legal
> way to get a free copy of MASM.
No, but if you are a licensee of VC++ and ML.EXE is
considered a "redistributable", then you could redistribute
ML.EXE if point (2) if the EULA is to be interpreted literally.
As for the "it doesn't appear in the redist.txt" argument, the
problem with that is what about other new files appear in the
processor pack that don't come with VC++ originally (and,
therefore, couldn't appear in that file)?
Ultimately, of course, the final interpretation is Microsoft's
and Microsoft's alone. Thus far, they seem to be ignoring
your requests that they look into the "piracy" of this product.
This falls in line with what most of us believe to be true --
Microsoft has to support MASM insofar as making it available
and supporting their OS and compilers, but they have zero
interest in spending money supporting the product (technical
support and the like) and are probably quite happy that
people like Hutch have taken it upon themselves to support
the product for those who want to do Win32 assembly
programming with MASM.
As to the ethics and legalities of what Hutch is doing, it's
probably a big gray area. But it's not like Microsoft isn't
aware of what's going on. Even ignoring the attempts you've
made at letting them know, there have been people inside
Microsoft (at important positions) who are quite aware of
the MASM32 package. If they really wanted to do something
about it, they probably would have by now (i.e., Hutch would
have gotten a "cease and desist" order). Who knows? Maybe
this could still happen. But the bottom line is that if they *were*
to do this, they'd scare a whole lot of programmers off to Linux
faster than you can say "cease and desist". I suspect they're
quite happy with all these programmers spending all this
time and effort learning the Win32 API with MASM rather
than learning the Linux API with NASM or Gas :-)
One things fer sure, though. Regardless of what Microsoft
says and does today, they can always change their mind
tomorrow and pressure Hutch into stopping the distribution
of MASM. Legality has nothing to do with it. They could
sue him into the ground and they would win by default because
Hutch couldn't possibly afford the litigation they are capable
of. Some thing, for example, that could happen to the ReactOS team.
Whether or not Hutch would lose is irrelevant. He couldn't
afford to fight them so he would lose by default.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
hutch--
advantages in having negotiated directly with Microsoft is I have a
valid EULA that defines such considerations rather that verbal
agreements and the like and the EULA clearly defines Microsoft's
rights to remove the rights of use from anyone they like for what they
consider a violation of their licence.
The MASM32 project was made possible because Microsoft licenced the
appropriate binaries back in 1998 and the project in its current form
would no longer be possible if Microsoft no longer allowed the use of
the licenced binaries under the conditions of that EULA.
Noting that the vast majority of the MASM32 project is not written or
licenced from or by Microsoft, removal of the rights of use of the
binaries would completely remove and influence or rights they have in
the balance of the project which would leave the sourcing of required
Microsoft binaries to the person who download the project.
This of course exposes Microsoft to the risk of users seeking illegal
copies, warez and the like without the binaries being enclosed with
the existing EULA.
The other consideration is that there is a substantial suport system
going across the internet for MASM code which is not funded by
Microsoft which entails a substantial amount of cross costing from
other sources. Literally the educational support for MASM from a very
wide number of sources performs product support for a product that is
not currently commercially viable for them to fund support for
themselves.
If Microsoft chose to release MASM again complete with the normal
commercial level of product support, most serious MASM programmers
would BUY the software and there would be no need for a project like
MASM32 any longer but under the currect market this situation does not
appear likely in the short to medium term.
Regards,
T.M. Sommers
>
> Ultimately, of course, the final interpretation is Microsoft's
> and Microsoft's alone.
The ultimate interpretation would be that of the courts. One of
the rules that courts apply is that if a contract is ambiguous,
it is construed against the drafter, on the assumption that the
drafter was in a position to make it unambiguous if it had wanted
to. This is particularly in the case of a contract of adhesion
(something offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis), which the
EULA is. Thus, if you can persuade a court that your
interpretation of the EULA is reasonable, then you will win,
regardless of what Microsoft says about it.
> One things fer sure, though. Regardless of what Microsoft
> says and does today, they can always change their mind
> tomorrow and pressure Hutch into stopping the distribution
> of MASM. Legality has nothing to do with it. They could
> sue him into the ground and they would win by default because
> Hutch couldn't possibly afford the litigation they are capable
> of.
That is another issue.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Robert Redelmeier
> One of the rules that courts apply is that if a contract
> is ambiguous, it is construed against the drafter, on the
> assumption that the drafter was in a position to make it
> unambiguous if it had wanted to. This is particularly in
> the case of a contract of adhesion (something offered on
> a take-it-or-leave-it basis), which the EULA is.
An interesting rule. I've never heard it elsewhere.
Do you have some references?
-- Robert
Robert Redelmeier
> T.M. Sommers <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>> One of the rules that courts apply is that if a contract
>> is ambiguous, it is construed against the drafter, on the
>
> Do you have some references?
Never mind. I found lots with the keyphrase "contra
proferentem". Heavily applied in insurance disputes,
but present in US, UK and even European law.
-- Robert