One fucked up EULA

[yahurd]

i could have SWORN that would get an error

[TheQuirk]

Use python ... :fu: M$ ... M$ is completely full of shit, they must be exterminated :cool:

Telling someone to use python instead of assembler is like telling someone to use a bug as a bus. And what does Microsoft have anything to do with any of this?

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Telling someone to use python instead of assembler is like telling someone to use a bug as a bus. And what does Microsoft have anything to do with any of this?

By the way MASM and MASM32 are made by different people, the former is the Microsoft Assembler and the latter is the MASM32 project a clone of MASM.

Then use a non-M$ assembler.

:fu: M$

[yahurd]

Telling someone to use python instead of assembler is like telling someone to use a bug as a bus. And what does Microsoft have anything to do with any of this?

you dont just TASTE the microsoft?
"full power of microsoft windows""wont restrict you"
HA the fucking hypertrolls

[Aloone_Jonez]

The MASM32 forum discusses why they have the license.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0

They have some interesting debates on licenses.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?PHPSESSID=e81342a3a5c55910a02079e49e8c1bf6&action=search2


http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=4966.0

Stan,

Before I say anything, I will say that you should have seen the GPL flame wars from a few years back over at "the other place" (the the whole forum was deleted so you can't see it any more). I hope this does not deteriorate into that.

I won't download, read, open, assemble, compile or in any other way touch the source of a GPL'd file because if I do, if I use any "ideas" contained within in my own source, by the GPL I should make my own source GPL. I will not - it's too all-encompassing and I HATE HATE HATE it with a vengence. If I had my way, the GPL would die in a burning ball of fire and anyone who supports its current details would go too.

Ossa

That's an interesting point, I can identify with it but I don't agree with it.

http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=2890.0

You need only get a local copyright.  Copyrights are recognized internationally - except in places like China and Latin America.  The Chinese don't give a bloody damn about intellectual property infringement except when it is done at the expense of their own wealthier companies.  As for Latin America, it's pretty much the same situation, except that local organized crime rings (a.k.a. the local authorities) get involved if you or the U.S. fed's pay them off.  If you are concerned though about algorithms of your own invention being used by others, don't bother with patents.  They are a waste of money.  Being that we're on the subject, I suppose I should mention that patents are valid only within the countries in which they are obtained.  For coverage in foreign countries, you have one year to patent your inventions in those foreign countries from the time that you get your first patent; otherwise, your invention in those countries becomes a freebee.  Besides that, software patents are not recognized in Europe because the EU counts software as mathematical formulas, which, like scientific principles, cannot be patented.  Either way, you should be aware that regardless of what anybody ever says about software patent protection and such, the truth is software patents are just a self-defeating expense, and as such are pure b.s. sucker holes.  The fatal flaw with all software patents is that anybody can legally prohibit their software from being reverse-engineered.  This makes it impossible even just to legally look to see if anybody is possibly infringining on your software patent without admitting it to people.  So unless some hypothetical WeazelSoft Corporation makes a confirmable statement incriminating them with infringing on your software patents, this WeazelSoft Corporation could be going every day to the U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office to copy and make use of ever last algorithm you ever patent, and there would be absolutely nothing you can do legally to check to see whether or not that is so, and much less to prove that such is the case.  Therefore, stay away from software patents.  Your only real legal protection of any sort comes from copyrights, and those only cover the exact specific material you provide with your copyright application, not any idea, design principle, or anything else of an abstract nature used there.  If you want to prevent others from copying your algorithms, the only thing you really can do to that end is keep them to yourself.

I like what he says about software patants.

[WMD]

I won't download, read, open, assemble, compile or in any other way touch the source of a GPL'd file because if I do, if I use any "ideas" contained within in my own source, by the GPL I should make my own source GPL.

Last I checked, the GPL doesn't cover "ideas" like he says.  It covers verbatim code copying.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

If I had my way, the GPL would die in a burning ball of fire and anyone who supports its current details would go too.

I would like the opposite to happen.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

There's also nasm ... "the famous Netwide Assembler". Hopefully it does approximately the same thing.

[mobrien_12]

I won't download, read, open, assemble, compile or in any other way touch the source of a GPL'd file because if I do, if I use any "ideas" contained within in my own source, by the GPL I should make my own source GPL.

Last I checked, the GPL doesn't cover "ideas" like he says.  It covers verbatim code copying.

The GPL is protected by copyright law.

Copyright doesn't cover "ideas," it covers expression of those ideas.

You could, in principle, not verbatim code copy, but change a few things around and still it would be copyright infringement.  However, the point is that it covers code, not ideas.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

The GPL is protected by copyright law.

Copyright doesn't cover "ideas," it covers expression of those ideas.

You could, in principle, not verbatim code copy, but change a few things around and still it would be copyright infringement.  However, the point is that it covers code, not ideas.

Exactly, only patents cover ideas

... what a douche :thumbdwn: Maybe one day he'll get a taste of a good old M$ lawsuit for selling illegitimate copies of Window$. He would deserve it.

[piratePenguin]

Anybody talking about disliking software covered by a specific COPYRIGHT license because of IDEAS has clearly no Fucking Clue or is trying to spread FUD.

Fucked up EULAs heh... I fail to see how anybody should have the right to prosecute  for sharing, but that's just me.

[Calum]

yes, people shouldn't comment until they know what they are commenting on at least.

that said, a *lot* of people are confused about the differences between copyright and patenting, and this is why software patents are getting shoved through in law with nobody giving a fuck about it. information is required to combat the FUD!

[yahurd]

Anybody talking about disliking software covered by a specific COPYRIGHT license because of IDEAS has clearly no Fucking Clue or is trying to spread FUD.

i vote fud, otherwise the license wouldn't say we are protecting you by not allowing you to use the gpl, it is the same ol' ms "the gpl is evil" shit that makes FUD stand for fucking unintelligent dumbass:fu: