alCoPaUL's views on Masm32, Masm64

[alCoPaUL]

yo, just an opinion.

this forum is dedicated to MASM32 (or 64) development, as i saw. as the MASM32 SDK has been hosted since early 2000s (or earlier), the only complication is the "extraction" of the ml46.exe and link.exe, but can easily be remedied by asserting that your use of those files and other files required by both .exes is under the MS Visual Studio Community Edition license. Since they're in a .vsix file and even the definition of that extension doesn't strictly require a particular edition ("only for Enterprise use") as its strict complement, you can still link the ml64.exe/link.exe .vsix from this forums to the MS website.

or just amend the EULA that the NEW MASM96 SDK (if you plan to combine ml & ml64) is solely for individual use. the MSVS Community License permits an individual user to create and sell his/her creation.

and that's empowering the individual user not to spend $$ or commit piracy and he/she can earn the fruits of his/her labor. He/She can even copyright the code that he/she created.

and yes, you want 2015-2019 or later compatibility, MS VS 2015 Community Edition.

if you try to subvert the individual user clause by making a collective effort named to an individual user as if only 1 person did a commercial app, the complications arise when in-fighting and some chaotic issues happen. and in the end, the name that was ascribed with the commercial app takes it all... and the rest of the "ghost" developers can't do #SNIP# anything...




#Moderator Edit#
profanity. I don't object to it, but others might.

[zedd151]

@ alCoPaUL:

The Masm32 SDK is finished, i.e., no changes will be made to it.
The Masm64 SDK is still 'beta version 2'. So far, no concrete plans for further development as the owner/author hutch-- has passed away, and as far as I know, no one has stepped forward to ask for, or take that responsibility.

Are you any kind of lawyer? If not, much of what you have posted is speculation, imo.

We do understand that there are licensing issues and is the reason that the 64 bit binaries cannot be packaged with the Masm64 SDK, and must be obtained by the end user.

[alCoPaUL]

zedd,

not a lawyer. not into legalities of any sort. it's just plain reading and making sense of what was posted in Microsoft Website.

yep, just speculations but you can either take it as something like a "third opinion" or just leave it as is..

[zedd151]

zedd,

not a lawyer. not into legalities of any sort.

Just wondering because all of your posts are regarding licensing or copyright issues, so thought you might be a legal expert on the subject.

[alCoPaUL]

zedd,

just wanna make sure that no complicatons will arise. the fact that i finally registered after for so long is that kinda wanna use masm for my seasonal personal projects.. or some stuffs.

comparing to fasm which is written and wholly owned by a person and nasm which is under bsd license and is community driven, masm (up to masm 16-bit) is still proprietary or still owned by microsoft (even the first ever MS-DOS is under their EULA). but good thing that they have the Microsoft Visual Studio Community License for those who cannot shell out $$ and don't want to use for software production a compromised serial in a Professional/Enterprise edition.

someone could fuse the MASM32SDK with the current ml64.exe and etc files and use it to individually produce and sell software under the Community License and if Microsoft goes powertripping, he can say that he used the MASM32SDK using the Community License because the Current Community License applies to MS Visual Studio Version that has ml.exe, link.exe etc in it and MASM32SDK also has ml.exe, link.exe and the welcome texts if we run those files from current to MASM32 SDK has "Microsoft (c)" in them..

and you can cite that even the comments themselves will protect you via the separate ownership of IBM DOS - "PC-DOS" and Microsoft DOS - "MS-DOS". that means even though only 2 letters are different obviously) they're still NOT THE SAME SOFTWARE and individually they are owned by different companies..

[zedd151]

@alCoPaUL:
I know that you are trying to be helpful, but more speculation is not what is needed here. Many people here have their own ideas regarding what is legal and what is not, mostly speculation - not substantiated by any verifiable documentation whatsoever.
That being said, if you can provide a EULA for specifically the .vsix files under discussion here that would be great. But it would have to come with some verifiable provenance (where it came from). Thank you for trying to help.
The Masm32 SDK and the Masm64 SDK are two separate entities.
The Masm32 SDK is a finished Legacy package. It will not be fused with anything nor changed. Unless of course its ownership is transferred to another party and they change it, which is doubtful.
That Masm64 SDK remains unfinished in the Beta version 2 stage of development...

All of that being said, I do not speak for the current forum Administrator. These are my views on this subject.


zedd.

[alCoPaUL]

there are no double single apostrophes in my intention to help.

facts are facts - Microsoft made MASM16/32/64 and i am offering you a perspective on closing the exploit of someone dragging you down when some #SNIP# things happen because someone overwrote the Microsoft EULA on components of an SDK via its own SDK License. the Forums MASM32 SDK is still legally binding and will have no complications if you put The Micosoft Visual Studio Community License over it. With that, you can legally use .vsix files invoking the Community License, allowing you to use the latest ml64.exe and etc files in it with the MASM32 SDK.

and since you applied the Community License on the MASM32 SDK which cannot be challenged, components written on top of the SDKs ml.exe and etc files will automatically be under open source, thus you can freely use them. this is why microsoft can use in their visual studio some components like android builds, clang, openjdk etc.

and if MASM32 is hijacked as a collective work and you dont want the components to be opensource, the opportunity to apply the Community License to it will not be available and you have no choice but to break up or discontinue the MASM32 SDK. it's an individual who declared that software as Legacy and not Microsoft.



#Moderator Edit#
profanity. I don't object to it, but others might.

[zedd151]

Further information regarding the Masm32 SDK License...
https://masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=11360.0
Topic closed.

EDIT Unfortunately the above link no longer works, as the thread was Deleted by the member when he 'Resigned'.