Google discussion about masm32.com site

[hutch--]

The general drift is that licencing is not determined by internet debate but by the intent of the owner and copyright holder of the software.

The interpretation that would allow GPL projects to be written using Microsoft software depends of trying to force an unusual view of the phrase "including but not limited to" so it includes Applications but does not include Windows and Winnt. The exit clause is wide enough to give them the capacity to enforce their own interpretation and of course there is the massive legal costs of attempting litigation to try and force the unusual interpretation.

The conditions of the copyright make this even easier.

2.   COPYRIGHT.  All title, including but not limited to copyrights, in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT any copies thereof are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers.  All title and intellectual property in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties.  This EULA grants you no rights to use such content.  All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft. Therefore, you must treat the SOFTWARE PRODUCT like any other copyrighted material except that you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes.  You may not copy the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

1. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content.
2. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft.

The person / corporation / organisation that attempted to litigate on the basis of this EULA would be doing it for fun or practice as they have little chance of reinterpreting the entire EULA to their advantage.

n32, basically you would have to hire your own American corporate lawyer to get the information you are after.

[nasm64developer]

> The interpretation that would allow GPL projects to be
> written using Microsoft software depends of trying to
> force an unusual view of the phrase "including but not
> limited to" so it includes Applications but does not
> include Windows and Winnt.

Who's to say that your opinion isn't the "unusual view"?

;-)

I consider that "including but not limited to" part to
cover the rest of the sentence, precisely because there
are no additional limiters or separators, e.g. commas.

You claim that MSFT provided you with a clarification,
which says otherwise. I don't doubt your claim... but
is that clarification available from a public corporate
source, such as MSFT's website? Simple question, simple
answer -- yes or no?

Fwiw, I don't care about the GPL FUD... but I did have
to use ML.EXE in the past, to produce DOS binaries...

[hutch--]

Who's to say that your opinion isn't the "unusual view"?

;-)

The owner.

but
is that clarification available from a public corporate
source, such as MSFT's website? Simple question, simple
answer -- yes or no?

Simple answer, feel free to do your own research, I don't have the time and I seriously doubt that Microsoft will fund the legal costs of the enquiry for you.

[nasm64developer]

> > is that clarification available from a public corporate
> > source, such as MSFT's website? Simple question, simple
> > answer -- yes or no?
>
> Simple answer, feel free to do your own research, I don't
> have the time and I seriously doubt that Microsoft will
> fund the legal costs of the enquiry for you.

A search of Microsoft's website came up empty-handed. And
an inquiry with my resident legal counsel suggests that
the "including but not limited to" portion does extend to
the end of that particular sentence, i.e. that it merely
provides a couple of examples, but doesn't impose a limit.

With that, I stand by my original assessment: as long as
one's code does not make use of MSFT's sample code and/or
sample libraries, one is free to pick both, an arbitrary
platform as well as an arbitrary license for one's code,
and assemble it with MASM 6.11d from that Windows 98 DDK.

And yes, just because I trust my counsel on this, doesn't
mean that anyone else should base their decisions on this.

Now I shall investigate those 6.12/6.13/6.14 patches, to
find out what license they are under...

[hutch--]

hmmmmm,

With that, I stand by my original assessment: as long as
one's code does not make use of MSFT's sample code and/or
sample libraries, one is free to pick both, an arbitrary
platform as well as an arbitrary license for one's code,
and assemble it with MASM 6.11d from that Windows 98 DDK.

What you do is of course your own business and who you trust is your problem but I will make the point that the EULA is very specific about what platforms are allowed and it is clear that only Microsoft operating systems are allowed under licence. If you have some desire to bring the wrath of the owner of the software down on your head, try and start a public project that uses the DDK outside of its licence and you will enjoy all of thre benefits of doing so.

This forum has in its rules the requirement that any activity here is legal and it will not be used as a vehicle for people trying to circumvent the licence of commercially owned software. While people with a GPL background may attempt to play "musical chairs" with licencing on the basis of the licencing system used for the GPL system, they will do it elsewhere.

[Randall Hyde]

I read somewhere that dark colours are actually bad for TFTs cause darkers colours place extra strain on the crystals or whatever. Was quite probabbly all a myth though.

Actually, no, it is not a myth.
When you darken the LCD, the crystal absorb more heat, which damages them in the long run (heat is the enemy of electronics).

As for all the nonsense about white on black being better than black on white, well, it's just nonsense.
The colors aren't anywhere near as important as the contrast. Too much contrast or too little contrast creates problems (the real problem with Webster's color schemes has not been the colors themselves, but the high-contrast ratio between the colors, for example).

In real life, our eyes are designed for an 18% gray scale. (that is 18% black on 82% white).  This is why, for example, that light meters for cameras generally produce the most pleasing results when you measure them with one of the 18% gray cards created specifically for this purpose.

Putting black letters on a white background comes *much* closer to the 18% gray level than does putting white letters on a black background (which comes closer to an 82% gray scale, since it's just the negative). 

Bogdan's argument that staring at black on white is like "staring at a light bulb all day" is also nonsense. Sunlight reflected from beach sand or snow is *far* brighter than a typical LCD panel, yet people manage to do recreational activities at these places all day long without much in the way of eyestrain. God gave us "pupils" that can dialate explicitly to allow us to handle a wide dynamic range of light. The only time that staring at an LCD would create problems is if you are constantly switching back and forth between and LCD and a very dark object (e.g., alternating reading in the dark with looking at an LCD screen). Anyone who has dragged a laptop outdoors and tried to work on their computer in sunlight realizes that LCDs don't put out a whole lot of light -- outdoors is *much* brighter than an LCD, yet people function just fine outdoors.

Before anyone buys into this "white on black" is better nonsense, it would be wise to study a little human physiology, psychology, advertising, and graphics arts. Researchers in these fields have *long* studied what human beings consider attractive and comfortable to view. Believe me, if it was easier to read white letters on a black background, our books would be printed with white ink on black paper.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde