Re: HJWasm 2.28 release

[nidud]

deleted

[jj2007]

The version debated here is the implementation used by Borland tools (C/C++/Pascal/..).

Really, what stops you from writing a PROLOG?

it's illegal to produce open source software using MASM (or any other MS tools for that matter), hence the reason there are no (legal) open source projects available online using MASM.

If that is an obstacle for using Masm32, it might be worth a discussion. From what I understand, Hutch hates the idea to give away Masm32 SDK knowledge to the open saucers, which is a legitimate position. Maybe there is some sort of acceptable use, e.g. no redistribution of the Masm32 package, HJWasm only, etc - no idea ::)

[guga]

" it's illegal to produce open source software using MASM (or any other MS tools for that matter), "

It has been years since i last reviewed M$ Eula´s, but.... once you have a legit copy of a product (specially one designed to create apps, like VisualStudio or it´s internal parts like Masm, etc) or if even M$ freely distributes ANY app then the usage you will do for it is up to you... There is NO legal reasons to forbid you to dispose of your created apps as you wish.

That would be ridiculous, for not saying the least. It is the same thing as you are creating a video using, let´s say, MovieMaker and "suddenly" M$ forbids you to distribute or release your own video (on youtube for example), simply because you use their tool to create. or, only allows you to release the video on a M$ server etc. You are the author of it and you can do whatever you want with your creation, selling, distributing it freely, opening the source or whatever.

There are limits to the restrictions you can impose on the license of the software you are selling. Those limits, in general cannot conflict with your own authorial rights. (or in case, the consumer authorial rights that uses M$ apps).

Or...in our case (programming), according to this assumption, if you own a license of Visual Studio you can not create your apps and release them for free or even with YOURS source code ?  I´m quite sure that you misinterpreted the Eula or the authorial rights concept. Any clause that impose to you to sell the apps created by a third part software CANNOT impose to you the way you are going to release your work with, of course, rare exceptions, for instance you may forbid others to use your apps to create weaponry, for example (I remember reading such restriction years ago on a M$ Eula if i´m not mistaken...and those sort of restrictions, are somewhat ok because are on the limits of the restrictions you may impose concerning the usage of the app by your consumer). Otherwise you wouldn´t be a consumer of M$ products, but a true partner. (I wouldn´t mind being partner of M$ company, btw..the value of their actions on the  market i believe are still high, though  ). Can´t you guys imagine ? We are all partner of Mr. Billy "The kid" Gates

[aw27]

it's illegal to produce open source software using MASM (or any other MS tools for that matter), hence the reason there are no (legal) open source projects available online using MASM.

I don't think this applies anymore. MASM is now distributed with VS Community Edition and under the same licensing terms.

[guga]

I don't think this applies anymore.

It don´t. In fact, never did. What user´s can´t do (or couldn´t) is release or sell etc any part of the SDK. (That restriction, if exists, should be valid, after all the consumer/user did not created the SDK), but, the user can, however, do (in general, of course) whatever he wants with the app he created using the SDK or a 3rd part app.

[jj2007]

> it's illegal to produce open source software using MASM (not my quote btw)

I don't think this applies anymore. MASM is now distributed with VS Community Edition and under the same licensing terms.

But it means that you must force the user to download gigabytes of VS Crap Edition in order to get access to ML.exe :(
Same applies to QT btw. For a simple print "blurb", you either must force your user to install the package, or, if you just send him the "executable" of your hello world proggie, user will be surprised to see that several megabytes are required to say "blurb".

In contrast, HJWasm.exe is a tiny 0.48 MB download. But it requires the Masm32 SDK to do anything convincing, and that is Hutch' baby, so he might tell us what is legit, legal, abusive etc.

@guga: yes, user can distribute helloworld.exe freely. But open sauce projects are distributed with all the required elements to build the helloworld.exe - and here starts the debate 8)

[habran]

HJWasm does not need Masm32 SDK it has WinInc SDK which can be used for open sources 8)

[hutch--]

I have a very straight forward view on licenced freeware, when every other open source licence is abandoned (GPL and variants) I may make code available outside the licence it is covered with but under no circumstances will the MASM32 code base and system be absorbed under some other crapheap licence.

MASM32 has always been true freeware, you can write what you like, you can sell it if you want, you are not beholding to anyone for your code, you do not have to make your code available to anyone but you cannot impose any other licence on it. This definitively excludes GPL and variants.

I have no beef at all with anyone who writes their own code but I draw the line at bludgers who want to steal your code and give it away to a hostile licencing system that then wants to claim ownership of that code. GPL and variants contributed nothing to this SDK and they get nothing back. Long ago before 2000 I used to give code and support away but all I ever got back was their PHUKING Licence.

[hutch--]

Something that I should have noted, as there is a demand for open source assembler software that uses a more or less MASM format, I have continued to support John and Habran as well as nidud in producing their own assemblers as it is their own software and they have a normal sensible right to point it whoever they like. I would hope for their own sakes that they protect their work and don't let some bullsh*t organisation take ownership of their work.

I noted with some humour that the include file that Vasily provided for his project had about half of its content directly copied out of the MASM32 version of "windows.inc" and along with many others was a lack of willingness to do the tedious work to make successful header file for MASM or compatibles. They are bastard hard things to get right and if you PHUK them up you start to get the 100 errors before the assembly stops style of problem.

[nidud]

deleted

[guga]

"you cannot impose any other licence on it."

"But open sauce projects are distributed with all the required elements to build the helloworld.exe "

These are the keypoints. You can use whatever license you want on your app, regardless what tool you use when created it. The problem is that when you create your software using a M$ app you will, eventually, having to distribute M$ code (If allowed from sdk or whatever etc) and, therefore, you cannot alter their license on their code as if those parts of the code you had made.

For instance, you are creating a app that uses a  header which have a specific license (M$ or whatever). When you create your own app if the distribution of this header is needed (and allowed), then on this header you must respect the EULA. In other terms, you cannot use or redistribute, for example, window.h from Visual Studio and claim it´s yours. This is a infringement of copyright and not the EULA itself.

This is not a problem with GPL itself, neither M$ Eula, but a problem with the user that creates a derivative work claiming that all of it´s components belongs to him or where created by him. That´why, btw, many licenses (including M$), have on it´s clauses permission to distribute only if you put a mention that those specific parts of the code belongs to A or B and are not a derivative or unique work that you made. One thing is you build a app (from scratch or biased on another work/technique) and put whatever license you want, another is redistributing other people´s code  and claim that their code are yours.

The problem of GPL, IMHO is that, although it was designed to grant freedom, it ended up being somewhat restrictive. That´s why i needed to review years ago RosAsm license and make a specific license for it, granting more freedom of usage and, at the same time, trying to respect and preserve the authorial rights of the user´s that uses RosAsm to create their softwares. When i have time, i´ll review again the license and completely remove any association with GPL restrictions or impositions, specially to avoid any kind of conflict in between the licenses the user wants to work with.

I would hope for their own sakes that they protect their work and don't let some bullsh*t organisation take ownership of their work.

Agree 1000 %  :t

[nidud]

deleted

[nidud]

deleted

[habran]

You know the answer on that question, FREEDOM!
In the case of DELPHI, the base has been set up, now just need some fine tune. We have done it just as a toy to exercise our brains.
However, it gives a bit of flavor to major meal, like french wine
 

[guga]

"You can't by any software from Microsoft. You only rent it under the conditions described in the licence."

yes. You buy the license of usage. And as any license, it has some limitations of what it can impose or not.

"You sure it's your video? Your images you posted on FB and so on?"

It don´t make any difference. You can create a video of yourself or you can create any sort of video (When you are a producer, for example). In all cases, the software you  used to edit the video that you created/shooted cannot impose to you restrictions of the video you made.