Google discussion about masm32.com site

[hutch--]

DaRetard,

MASM cannot be used for projects of that type because that type of licencing cannot over-ride Microsoft's own licence.

You can use FASM, NASM, GAS and probably GoAsm as well to write that type of project.

[Randall Hyde]

Black backgrounds do protect your eyes...

After a while you will learn that staring at a lit light bulb most of the day is not healthy for your eye
(the CRT or the TFT are actually lit light bulbs with white or light backgrounds)

So it is actually stupid to use light backgrounds
Unless you really really need it (like in typeseting to see how it looks on white paper)

On all other situations one should use black or dark backgrounds

Not that I'm an expert on web page design, or anything, but your assertion about black on white runs contrary to nearly 400 years of experience in the Graphic Arts.  Psychologists (long before computer screens came along) have done extensive studies on what is easy to read and what causes eye strain.  Things that are easy to read are things that most closely resemble the world around us (that is, what our eyes are adapted to see). Any decent photographer will tell you that the human eye is set up to look at an 18% gray scene, on the average (that is, the scene contains 18% black and 82% white). The "white text on black screen" is almost the complete inverse of this. Believe me, folks like Apple Computer did not choose black on white in a trivial fashion. There is considerable research that shows this is *much* easier on the eyes than white on black.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

[shadow]

i like black background with shyblue text.... very easy to read!  and grey background with red text is nice too

[Mark Jones]

Woohoo, if I use a black background, does that mean I'm a l33t hax00r d00d?  :dance:

I code at night. During the day, with bright sunshine coming in the window, a white background is fine. But if your monitor gamma is 2.2 for video work, that white will knock your socks off at night. So, I like black at night. Pastel shades look really nice with black, 200+ luminosity provides good contrast. Someone with vision problems might need the white background with plenty of light though.

[drhowarddrfine]

Any decent photographer will tell you that the human eye is set up to look at an 18% gray scene

No, not the eye.  The 18% is for the films response curve. 

[rea]

I have readed some time a go that a best read is suposed to be in some ike "pink" ie shoft colors but not white or even the combination of yellow/black


this
this
This color fow background with a black foreground = nice reading???
sdfsdf
a soft  yellow for background or this?


Y will go to search, come in some moments :)

[rea]

No high constrast is nice ;)

black with white => high contrast and taired eyes.


I dont like how look izcelions tutorials for example http://spiff.tripnet.se/~iczelion/tut8.html I feel that the white turns in thin gray or some like that, that make my eyes crazy and feel need to cry... or some like that, specially the thin characters.

Also http://spiff.tripnet.se/~iczelion/pe-tut1.html is the same effect I feel in my eyes, the white thin characters turns in a combination of blue and white and that hurt my eyes, the same effect than the anterior one example.

[rea]

A little note in the combination of whiet/black background, is about the bright, I attach two images, showing where a propagation of the more light color over the  obscure one, I also add a html file with a black back ground, for see if you can watch the effect in your monitor.....

Altought the screenshoot clearly show that there no exist color distortion in the zones marked with a rectange (tat is in memory), you will see in you monitor that in such zones the black is not at all black.....


I supose is near the same effect with the anterior examples where altought in memory one color is apart from the other, the optics in the image projected make the waves interfere with each others, dont know, but there exist a clear distortion when high contrast in colors is used....

Also I dont like any combination of text with red and blue!!!!!!! that make my eyes sad :P

;)

[attachment deleted by admin]

[nasm64developer]

> MASM cannot be used for projects of that type because
> that type of licencing cannot over-ride Microsoft's own
> licence.

So what license is ML.EXE under? The original one, which
covered the boxed version that came with paper manuals?
The Windows SDK license, which restricts you to "design,
develop, and test software application products for use
with Microsoft Windows or Windows NT operating systems"?
Or the Windows DDK license, which restrict you to "design,
develop, and test software products, including but not
limited to device drivers and other software products for
use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT"?

Note that I'm not talking about whatever source code may
be bundled with ML.EXE -- but just about the assembler.

Clearly the SDK license restricts you to creating stuff
that runs under Windows. However, it does not prevent you
from releasing your stuff under the GPL. Nor does it pre-
vent anyone from running your stuff under something like
DOSEMU or WINE.

And clearly the DDK license is even less restrictive, in
that it allows you to create stuff that doesn't run under
Windows. Again, nothing prevents you from releasing your
stuff under the GPL.

Of course the matter is a different one when your stuff is
making use of Microsoft's source code, bundled with MASM.
In that case you cannot apply the GPL to your stuff, since
Microsoft's license and the GPL aren't "compatible" with
eachother -- and Microsoft's takes precendence for their
source code.

That said, only Microsoft is in a position to provide a
definitive answer with regard to ML.EXE's license status.
And for the time being it seems as if their answer is to
bundle MASM with the SDK or the DDK. Either of which is
covered by a license that allows you to put your own code
under whatever license you want -- unless your code uses
one or more of Microsoft's source files.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[nasm64developer]

> Note that I'm not talking about whatever source code may
> be bundled with ML.EXE -- but just about the assembler.

Btw, pre-compiled library files would fall into the source
code bucket. That is, use them in your code, and you will
be bound by Microsoft's license. Don't use them, and you're
free to use whatever license you want.

[hutch--]

Pick a version, pick the licence it came with. MASM 6.11 is licenced to write OS2 code as well as DOS and Win3.0 and NT3.5 code and it has no other restrictions on its use at all.

Use a free version from a DDK and you are required to comply with the licence that allows you to use it. Enter the EULA for each version available.

And clearly the DDK license is even less restrictive, in
that it allows you to create stuff that doesn't run under
Windows. Again, nothing prevents you from releasing your
stuff under the GPL.

This is mistaken, the EULA for the win98ddk excludes any non Microsoft OS and they interpret it that way. Where the GPL licencing system will fail trying to use MASM as a tool for its projects is that it cannot control the usage as the software is copyright and owned by Microsoft. The EULA has an exit clause that allows Microsoft to cancel the usage if they are not satisfied with the use and that will kill a GPL project stone dead if it tries to use the DDK version of ML.

If you want to write GPL software, use GPL software, it really is that simple. My own approach is a very straight forward one, I OWN everything I use without any form of usage restriction at all so I can write anything I like.

[nasm64developer]

> This is mistaken, the EULA for the win98ddk excludes
> any non Microsoft OS and they interpret it that way.

Not true.

Download http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98SE/Install/Gold/W98/EN-US/98DDK.EXE.
Run it with the /c option, to just uncompress it.
Look at the LICENSE.TXT file (11,803 bytes).
Read section one ("GRANT OF LICENSE"), paragraph one ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT").

Note the "but not limited to" part -- see below for a quote.

Again, all I'm curious about is the use of ML.EXE to assemble
arbitrary code, which makes no use of Microsoft's sample files
or libraries -- no attempt to water down or change copyrights
and/or licenses covering Microsoft's products.

----------------------------------------------------------

1. GRANT OF LICENSE.

This EULA grants you the following limited, non-exclusive
rights:

* SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

You may make, install and use up to a maximum of ten (10)
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including
workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices,
residing on your premises, to design, develop, and test
software products, including but not limited to device
drivers and other software products ("Application(s)") for
use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.

[hutch--]

I have had the win98ddk EULA since 1998. Microsoft licencing advised me that the phrase you mention is interpreted as follows,

* SOFTWARE PRODUCT.  You may make, install and use up to a maximum of ten (10) copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers, including workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices, residing on your premises, to design, develop, and test software products, including but not limited to device drivers and other software products ("Application(s)") for use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.

The list in conjunctive,

1. to design, develop, and test software products, including but not limited to device drivers

and

2. other software products ("Application(s)")

OS specific,

3. for use with Microsoft Windows and/or Windows NT.

Exit clause.

4. Termination.  Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA.  In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.

Basically Microsoft will not supply development tools to licencing systems that are trying to displace Microsoft. Anyone who wishes to write GPL software sjould use GPL tools.

[nasm64developer]

> I have had the win98ddk EULA since 1998. Microsoft
> licencing advised me that the phrase you mention is
> interpreted as follows [...]

Is there an official corporate MSFT source for that
particular clarification? Say, a page at their site?

[donkey]

A license is a legal document, it makes no difference how Microsoft wants you to interpret it, the only arbitor of a license is the courts and they have a nasty habit of being very literal. Also, Microsoft makes no claim on the copyrights to software you create using it's tools so if you wish to license under the GPL (though I can't fathom why you would), they have no standing to stop you. The license is vague in that it seems to explicitly allow you to write applications or device drivers but appears not to limit them to MS Windows or NT. Since about the only thing you can write with a compiler is applications or drivers, there isn't much doubt that the courts would agree with nasm64developer's interpretation regardless of what Microsoft originally meant. This is a fundamental precept of contract law and even Microsoft would have a hard time wriggling out of it, probably the primary reason that that part of the license agreement was later modified and made more and more explicit to the point where now not even applications are allowed.