NASM32 release
Betov
I just re-installed the last Spook release.
Works OK now, but there is a major problem: No LGPL licence
found anywhere. So, unless i would be blind, this release
is, in my opinion, illegal.
No Sources found either. I am not sure about the point of
being allowed to distribute executables separated from the
sources (source provided aside), for a LGPLed program, when
it is about the re-distribution of an un-modified program
for nothing but what is was at the origin, but, here:
< http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/ >
I see no sources zip either. Not even any Link to any official
NASM page, nor any link to the sources. So, unless i would be
missing something, and, therefore, this release could be legal,
it would be, at least, a pure scandal, fully comparable to the
illegal redistribution of MASM under the name of MASM32.
Frank? Your views? Mine is that i am bored of these small guys
who need to steal other's job for existing:
* Hutch stealing MASM.
* Randall Hyde stealing FASM.
* Spook stealing NASM.
Betov.
Betov
212.27.60.38:
> < http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/ >
Warning. I just re-read the LGPL, as provided by the official
NASM distribution, and there is no doubt to me, that the re-
distribution of Spook is illegal. The only case when changing
the NASM licence is permitted is when switching from LGPL to
GPL. Evidently not from LGPL to "freeware".
This infamy has no other purpose, but to damage the freedom
introduced by the Open Sources Mouvement, and this must be
stopped. I suggest to anyone in US to report to the FSF, in
order to get the legitimate legal sues.
While waiting, i urge everybody to keep away from this attack
against the users' rights:
* Hutch stealing MASM is the problem of MicroSoft.
* Randall Hyde stealing FASM is the problem of Thomasz G.
* Spook stealing NASM is _YOUR_ problem. Do not let silently
criminals deprive you from your rights.
:(
Betov.
Frank Kotler
...
> * Spook stealing NASM.
Where'd he "steal" it from? None of *my* copies seem to be missing.
Distributing Nasm executables... there really *should* be a notification
*that* you can freely obtain source, and where. *My* view is that
"everybody knows" where to find Nasm source, if they want it. If I were
a lawyer (heavens forfend!), I would probably advise the NASM32 team to
include a notice of some kind that source is available.
Far from "stolen", I consider the NASM32 package to be a "value added"
redistribution. As Micro$oft *should* be happy to see Hutch
redistributing Masm with some files to make it more useful, I'm happy to
see the NASM32 team redistributing Nasm with some files to make it more
useful.
Checking again to make sure none of my copies is missing. I actually see
some new copies - with 64-bit support - with SpooK's fingerprints on
'em. Steal on, SpooK, steal on!!!
Strictly speaking, I think you're right. A lawyer might look at a valued
contributor to Nasm and say, "you didn't touch second base!!!". Only a
lawyer. Are you a lawyer, Betov? :)
Best,
Frank
hutch--
Your list is missing one theft.
* Hutch stealing MASM is the problem of MicroSoft.
* Randall Hyde stealing FASM is the problem of Thomasz G.
* Spook stealing NASM is _YOUR_ problem. Do not let silently
criminals deprive you from your rights.
* Betov stealing Intelligent firmware's assembler to write software
that he has redistributed in violation of the licence terms.
Don't be mislead, MASM is legit, FASM is redistributable, NASM
probably needs the GPL licence attached to it but Betov STOLE
commercial software to write and distribute his own assembler.
Come on Betov, back your chardonnay.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
Betov
@trndny03:
> Strictly speaking, I think you're right. A lawyer might look at a valued
> contributor to Nasm and say, "you didn't touch second base!!!". Only a
> lawyer. Are you a lawyer, Betov?
No i am not. The reason why i urge the US users to report to
the FSF, which job is to protect the users' rights.
Betov.
Betov
@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Betov STOLE
> commercial software to write and distribute his own assembler.
Go on trolling people with your political thread: This is where
you are the best.
* The Auto-compilable versions of RosAsm have been written,
for the first instance, using SpAsm.
* The Auto-compilable versions of SpAsm have been written,
for the first instance, using ASM32, for porting its Auto-
compilable ancestor from 16 bits to 32 bits.
* ASM32 was a freeware, the author of which answered to your
bullshits. As his answer, approving my usage of his tool,
was posted right here, at ALA, ages ago, Feel free to go
and buy some medication against senility.
No need to ask you with which tool you wrote MASM, nor with
which tool Randall Hyde wrote FASM, nor with which tool Spook
wrote NASM (even if he contributed with a minor add, recently,
this does not give him any right to violate the Licence).
I warned him that i was not duped by his contribution, when
he started upgrading to 64 bits. But i had not *this* vileny
in mind. I just thought that he was in need of some NASM
packaging for existing, the very same way you needed some MASM
packaging for existing - which is true, anyway, but making it
illegal was above what worse i could ever have imagined -.
You three are poor small little nerds, unable to do anything
by yourself, but by stealing others' works.
Betov.
Frank Kotler
> Betov <be...@free.fr> écrivait news:XnF99856BEF5EEDEbetovfreefr@
> 212.27.60.38:
>
>
>>< http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/ >
>
>
> Warning. I just re-read the LGPL, as provided by the official
> NASM distribution, and there is no doubt to me, that the re-
> distribution of Spook is illegal. The only case when changing
> the NASM licence is permitted is when switching from LGPL to
> GPL. Evidently not from LGPL to "freeware".
The NASM32 team might be in technical violation. They should include a
notice that you (we) have a right to obtain the source code. The package
*does* include the Nasm manual, which *does* include such a notice and
would cover their ass... but the version of the manual distributed with
the NASM32 package is a valuable antique, and contains out-of-date
information on that score. (whazzupwiddat, guys?).
Come to think of it, the binary distributions available at SourceFrog
may or may not include the file "COPYING"... Gonna bust us all?
> This infamy has no other purpose, but to damage the freedom
> introduced by the Open Sources Mouvement,
Your estimation of other people's motivations is evidence that
"credibility" must be treated as a signed quantity.
Best,
Frank
Betov
@trndny03:
> The NASM32 team might be in technical violation. They should include a
> notice that you (we) have a right to obtain the source code. The
package
> *does* include the Nasm manual, which *does* include such a notice and
> would cover their ass... but the version of the manual distributed with
> the NASM32 package is a valuable antique, and contains out-of-date
> information on that score. (whazzupwiddat, guys?).
>
> Come to think of it, the binary distributions available at SourceFrog
> may or may not include the file "COPYING"... Gonna bust us all?
I know that you are used to support criminals who regulary
violate any ethical concern, but, you like it or not, at
least, the SourceFrog thingie says clearly:
License : GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
Now, if you find out an official release of NASM without the
licence, and without any link to the sources, you have to
report it, so that "they" could fix the problem. Period.
The first link found by Google, is:
< http://nasm.sourceforge.net/ >
Which is something belonging to one another nobody of the
Evil Board gang-band, Bryant Keller, but, at least, that
one dares to delivers the Licence, in his zip.
So, i don't know where the real Page of NASM is. I even doubt
NASM could have any, as long as nobody ever maintained this
project, but, what i don't doubt about is that nobody can
violate the LGPL by making it Anti-GPL.
Betov.
sevag.krikorian
Rene is just upset that nobody has bothered to steal Rosasm for
redistribution.
I guess people only want to "steal" quality software.
hutch--
You have tried this crap many times before but you are at least as
guilty as those you accuse. You can hate MASM all you like but it EULA
is sound whether you like it or not. FASM is a great tool which was an
excellent choice for Randy Hyde to make and the old NASM is still a
very usful tool for those who have a feel for it.
Now while Keith may be an irritating little shit in his attempts to
reconstruct history into his own fairy tale, he is doing some
reasonable work with NASM and deserves respect for it. If you had any
brains left from alcaholic excess you would tactfully suggest that he
include the GPL licence in his NASM32 package for the NASM binaries
and/or source he has used and all would be well.
Breathing a bit more life into NASM is probably more important than
the trivialities of its licence when everyone knows its freeware with
a variety of licences that can be used. You may feel profound cobbling
together an assembler but be aware that many have done far more
complex tasks and not blown their trumpet about it.
Betov
@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> f you had any
> brains left from alcaholic excess you would tactfully suggest that he
> include the GPL licence in his NASM32 package for the NASM binaries
> and/or source he has used and all would be well.
If you had any brain left, from alcoholic excesses, you would
understand that this is a deliberate attempt to deprive users
from their legal rights.
By the way, i am surprised that he found nothing to answer in
two days. He probably was relying on Hutch--, --, --,..., his
good old fellow, for taking his defence:
Thieves solidarity, when not in a Rats War, Part n.
Betov.
hutch--
> Thieves solidarity, when not in a Rats War, Part n.
The version of NASM I have recently downloaded from sourceforge has a
standard LGPL attached to it.
=======================================================================
GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, February 1999
Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts
as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence
the version number 2.1.]
etc .............
=======================================================================
What is all the whinging about. Just sell him the idea to include the
LGPL licence and all is well. Its not as if he is selling it or making
money out of it.
Just remember that he is not advancing the Betov Licencing System
(BLS) (Ifya wannit, stealit). :)
Betov
@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Just sell him the idea to include the
> LGPL licence and all is well
Just sell him the idea to not include the LGPL licence,
nor any Sources access, and all is wrong. Period.
Betov.
rand...@earthlink.net
> Frank Kotler <fbkot...@verizon.net> écrivait news:Wi0ui.6530$CE4.2390
> @trndny03:
>
> > Strictly speaking, I think you're right. A lawyer might look at a valued
> > contributor to Nasm and say, "you didn't touch second base!!!". Only a
> > lawyer. Are you a lawyer, Betov?
>
> No i am not. The reason why i urge the US users to report to
> the FSF, which job is to protect the users' rights.
Actually, you just want to raise a big stink to try and damage yet
another assembly development effort because you're getting left
farther and farther behind.
You *do* realize, don't you, that you're *hurting* "assembly language"
with all this nonsense, right? If you really cared about *assembly
language* and you were concerned about promoting it, a simple email to
Keith would have been all that was necessary to correct your perceived
oversight.
But no. Just as you publically trashed the ReactOS team, you insist on
making a mountain out of this molehill in the hopes of scaring people
away from the NASM32 project. You can't handle the fact that yet
someone else might get a little "glory" from their work, can you? You
can't handle the fact that Keith might actually be making it possible
for people to develop assembly "applications" using a true GPL'd OS,
can you?
Grow up Rene. You don't compete by complaining about other's work. You
compete by creating a product that is superior. If you spent half the
time working on your own project as you do complaining about everyone
else's efforts, you might actually have a product that *could*
compete.
Get real.
hLater,
Randy Hyde
Betov
news:1186621490.6...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Actually, you just want to raise a big stink to try and damage yet
> another assembly development effort because you're getting left
> farther and farther behind.
Oh! A thief at the rescue of a thief, here!
:)
Betov.
rand...@earthlink.net
> "randyh...@earthlink.net" <randyh...@earthlink.net> écrivaitnews:1186621490.6...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Actually, you just want to raise a big stink to try and damage yet
> > another assembly development effort because you're getting left
> > farther and farther behind.
>
> Oh! A thief at the rescue of a thief, here!
Whatever.
BTW, you should learn that there is a difference between copyright
infringement and theft. And you should also learn that when someone
follows the license that grants copy rights, it isn't even copyright
infringement.
Then again, if you did that, you wouldn't be able to spread such much
FUD, would you?
BTW, is Keith *refusing* to provide the copyright notice? If not,
then you owe him an apology.
Do keep in mind that calling someone a "thief" when the person is not
guilty of stealing anything is *slander*. As you're calling *two*
people here thieves who are not at all guilty of "stealing" code (that
is, depriving the rightful owners of that code), that would make you a
slanderer. And as you're doing this with prejudice (as opposed to,
say, Keith who may [or may not] be in technical violation of a "shrink-
wrapped" license agreement), and that makes you *far* more guilty.
As the old saying goes, "let he who is without sin throw the first
stone." IOW, before you start accusing others of various sins, it
would be best for you to clean up your own house.
hLater,
Randy Hyde
CodeMonk
> As the old saying goes, "let he who is without sin throw the first
> stone." IOW, before you start accusing others of various sins, it
> would be best for you to clean up your own house.
I guess Betov wasn't welcomed into the collective during the
assimilation - I mean during the clean up. Since none are without
sin, that affords little protection in here. Simpler just to keep
your Louisville Slugger close by and remain vigilant against inbound
projectiles - especially the stealthy ones.
hLater,
^ I finally just got this - I was gonna ask, but ... I guess I am
stupid - I did, after all, purchase Linux also. :)
- Scott
Betov
news:1186683081.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> As you're calling *two*
> people here thieves
Wrong, clown: Three.
* Hutch stealing MicroSoft MASM, for existing.
* Master Pdf stealing FASM, because unable to write any Assembler.
* Spook stealing NASM, by violating the Licence.
At, least, this last one, as opposed to the two other nobodies,
wrote something for NASM, but this does not give him any rights
for violating the licence.
Betov.
hutch--
when you first wrote SpAsm you did it with commercial softare that you
STOLE from Intelligent firmware (asm32). Now whether they made it free
for private use after or not does not matter in your case, you STOLE
the software and released and DISTRIBUTED SpAsm even though their
licence did not allow it for a non-registered version.
> * Hutch stealing MicroSoft MASM, for existing.
>
> * Master Pdf stealing FASM, because unable to write any Assembler.
>
> * Spook stealing NASM, by violating the Licence.
* Betov stealing ASM32 to write his orioginal SpAsm.
Just more bullsh*t Betov.
Betov
@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> Come on Betov, you are just repeating yourself. Everyone knows that
> when you first wrote SpAsm you did it with commercial softare that you
> STOLE from Intelligent firmware (asm32).
Too bad for you, troll, that ASM32 still exists:
< http://www.intelligentfirm.com/asm32.htm >
:)
Too bad, also, that the answer of the author, approving
my usage of his freeware, is still on line:
< http://groups.google.fr/group/alt.lang.asm/browse_thread/thread/e67064f
24ccf1006/5d731b43a05bdd66?lnk=gst&q=ASM32&rnum=1&hl=fr#5d731b43a05bdd66
>
:)
Betov.
PS. With which Tool did you wrote MASM?
:)
hutch--
Pull the other leg.
======================================================
*-------------*
| A S M 3 2 | V1.1 1999
*-------------*
This program is shareware, it may be used for an UNLIMITED period of
evaluation free of charge, by private users only. It is not Freeware
and
is not allowed to be used in a commercial or government environment.
If you like it you should register in order to gain all the benefits.
======================================================
1. You did not PAY for it.
2. You have no right of distribution.
You may have a point that Keith needs to include the LPGL licence with
his NASM32 package but thats about all. It is not being offered for
sale and NASM is so well known that there is no problem identifying
it.
Instead of quaking in fear that yet another assembler project will get
more support than yours, embrace the fact that your contribution to
spreading the popularity of the sheer brutal power of MASM has been
considerable and could be a factor in getting MASM up over its 90%
usage in Windows.
> PS. With which Tool did you wrote MASM?
Some people WRITE assembler, other people write the assembler but you
are in that special class of people who fail at both. :)
Betov
@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> This program is shareware, it may be used for an UNLIMITED period of
> evaluation free of charge, by private users only. It is not Freeware
> and
> is not allowed to be used in a commercial or government environment.
> If you like it you should register in order to gain all the benefits.
>======================================================
>
> 1. You did not PAY for it.
> 2. You have no right of distribution.
Poor idiot,
* What people pay for, is CPL32, which i never needed.
* SpAsm never was "commercial or government environment".
* I never distributed ASM32, nor anything in ASM32.
* After having "evaluated" ASM32, by porting SpAsm from
16 to 32 Bits, i have estimated that SpAsm was better
for my needs than ASM32.
:))
By the way, with witch tool did you wrote MASM, troll?
Betov.
rand...@earthlink.net
> "randyh...@earthlink.net" <randyh...@earthlink.net> écrivaitnews:1186683081.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > As you're calling *two*
> > people here thieves
>
> Wrong, clown: Three.
>
> * Hutch stealing MicroSoft MASM, for existing.
>
> * Master Pdf stealing FASM, because unable to write any Assembler.
>
> * Spook stealing NASM, by violating the Licence.
>
> At, least, this last one, as opposed to the two other nobodies,
> wrote something for NASM, but this does not give him any rights
> for violating the licence.
Why not make it four?
Rene Tournois. For stealing the ReactoOS name. Unlike the three
"theives" he mentions above, he not only misappropriated the ReactOS
name into his product, but when asked to change the name by the
ReactOS team, he refused.
Now had any of the other three been asked to stop what they were doing
by the copyright holders, they (certainly in my case) would have
complied. Rene has actively *refused* to quit using the name he
stole. Unlike the other three people listed above.
Rene, you should be ashamed of yourself. Calling other people
"thieves" when you're far more guilty of said infraction.
hLater,
Randy Hyde
Betov
news:1186771710.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Why not make it four?
>
> Rene Tournois. For stealing the ReactoOS name.
Right, clown. I stole "Ros", and i am quite happy of it.
I must also apologize, that i also stole the letters "Asm".
Shame on me!
:)
Too bad that nobody had written the RosAsm's four megas of
Asm Sources, because i would have been glad of stealing them,
as well.
:)
Pssshhhittt... With which tool did you wrote FASM, clown?
Oh, yes! I recall: With your big fat ass, by sitting on it.
Betov.
rand...@earthlink.net
> "randyh...@earthlink.net" <randyh...@earthlink.net> écrivaitnews:1186771710.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Why not make it four?
>
> > Rene Tournois. For stealing the ReactoOS name.
>
> Right, clown. I stole "Ros", and i am quite happy of it.
Right. I "stole" FASM and I'm quite happy of it.
I guess the only difference between us is that I have Tomasz blessing
for using FASM as part of the HLA system, whereas the ReactOS team has
asked you to stop using their name as part of your product.
That must be what makes you right and me wrong, eh?
>
> I must also apologize, that i also stole the letters "Asm".
> Shame on me!
Quit trying to weasle out of this.
You've used the name 'ReactOS' (the "Ros" part of "RosAsm") as part of
your product name and you've been asked to stop. You've refused.
>
> Too bad that nobody had written the RosAsm's four megas of
> Asm Sources, because i would have been glad of stealing them,
> as well.
None of that is relevant. You've misappropriate another product's name
as part of your assembler's name. You've been asked to stop. You've
refused. What other names you use, what source code you've written.
None of that changes the fact that you've stolen the name "ReactOS"
for use as your product's name. You've been asked to change the name.
You refuse.
>
> Pssshhhittt... With which tool did you wrote FASM, clown?
What tool I used to "wrote FASM" is irrelevant. That has nothing to do
with the fact that you've stolen the name "ReactOS" for use in your
product name, and you continue to use it despite being asked to stop.
While you're at it, why not talk about Bush invading IRAQ, or
Christianity, or conservatism, or Nazis, or whatever it is you switch
to when you've lost an argument and you're trying to change the
subject so you don't look like a dufus.
None of those discussions change the fact that you've misappropriate
the ReactOS name into your own product and you refuse to change it,
even after being asked by the ReactOS team to do so.
So go ahead and continue to call people thieves around here. Rest
assured that the point that you stole the ReactOS name will be brought
up each and every time.
hLater,
Randy Hyde
hutch--
Spare us the bullsh*t, everyone can read the licence.
======================================================
This program is shareware, it may be used for an UNLIMITED period of
evaluation free of charge, by private users only. It is not Freeware
and is not allowed to be used in a commercial or government
environment. If you like it you should register in order to gain all
the benefits.
======================================================
1. You did not PAY for it.
2. You did not register it.
3. You have no right of distribution OR redistribution of what you
write while evaluating the software.
By your own admission SpAsm was written in ASM32 and as you did not
pay for it anything you distribute from your original THEFT to your
current toy is illegal and in violation of that licence.
> By the way, with witch tool did you wrote MASM, troll?
A "witch" is an old lady with a black pointy hat. The word you want in
English is "which".
Come back and ask the question when you have written an assembler.
Pelle did it, Tomasz did it and Jeremy did it, why can't you write an
assembler as well instead of a conglomeration of junk bundled
together ?
Until you have PAID for ASM32 and written legally distributable
software, your own crap should be at the top of your phony list.