Flat Executable Compiler Output

NTDEV
21

The same jurisdictions in which one can legally prohibit you from
duplicating the zeros and ones that happen to encode a song or movie.

The same jurisdictions in which you can get free (or nearly free) copies
of Windows and Visual Studio and all the Server products from MSDN,
MSDNAA, or TechNet, but aren’t legally allowed to use those bits or the
bits they output for commercial use until you pay more for the exact
same bits.

I thought most jurisdictions respected the value of IP and the legality
of license agreements. Don’t assume just because enforcement may be
lax, that it’s legal.

In Soviet Russia, software license YOU!

On 3/3/2010 6:09 PM, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:

> I think WDK is even legally prohibited from being used in this area,
>
I just wonder in which jurisdiction one can legally prohibit to use a certain compiler for something other than a certain purpose…

> strip the PE file using your own tool to the format understandable by GRUB (if you really want
> to violate the WDK’s license).
>
Gets more and more exciting…

Are you claiming that one can be legally prohibited from editing binary data if it happens to be a certain compiler’s output???

I just wonder what jurisdiction you are living in. I strongly suspect that this “jurisdiction” exists only in
imagination of those who take everything from " Politburo in Redmond" for granted…

Anton Bassov

NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

22

> The same jurisdictions in which you can get free (or nearly free) copies

of Windows and Visual Studio and all the Server products from MSDN,
MSDNAA, or TechNet, but aren’t legally allowed to use those bits or the
bits they output for commercial use until you pay more for the exact
same bits.

No, not the “bits they output”.

MSDN license allows installation of any Windows software for testing purpose, not for real-world deployment. Nevertheless, MSDN includes 10 usual licenses to client Windows and MS Office.

In Soviet Russia, software license YOU!

In Soviet Russia, the software was pirated on the level of governemental ministries - mainly the one from RSX-11 ecosystem - there were very popular clones of the machine in the Eastern Bloc, all usually running RSX-11, and there were also nearly-exact - with some hardware customized - clones of desktop LSI-11 running RT-11.

Yes, this was a governement decision - let’s reverse-engineer and clone the hardware, and then use pirated software country-wise. The hardware etc was given Russian names (RSX-11 was called The Realtime OS etc), and there were even books on the assembly language of “MiniSystem Electronic Computers” (PDP-11) or “Unified Line of Electronic Computers” (IBM/360), without ever mentioning the original names.

USSR even pirated the whole IBM’s vertical solution for selling railroad and airline tickets based on IBM/360.

Well, RT-11 was my first platform to touch when I was a senior schoolboy :slight_smile:

–
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

23

On 3/3/2010 11:33 PM, Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:

No, not the “bits they output”.

MSDN license allows installation of any Windows software for testing purpose, not for real-world deployment. Nevertheless, MSDN includes 10 usual licenses to client Windows and MS Office.

Academically-licensed Visual Studio Professional generates the exact
same compiler output as commercially-licensed Visual Studio
Professional. Yes, legally, you can’t use the “bits they output” for
production use unless you’ve licensed the compiler for that.

You could say that a test web server deployment licensed under MSDN or
TechNet outputs the same bits over HTTP as a production web server
deployment, but the license agreement says how you can or can’t use
those outputted bits.

Semantic issues aside, I was just trying to present analogous examples
wherein the license agreements specify how you can or can’t use the bits
generated by the licensed software, and these licenses are (or are in
the US) legally valid and binding. I suppose it would be bad for the
ecosystem in general if the tools could not be licensed in these ways to
different populations who have different needs.

That said, I have no idea what the WDK license agreement says, but it
probably says something about “USER” using “PRODUCT” and a bunch of
other words in all caps.

And in the spirit of Glasnost I’m going to shut up now :slight_smile:

24

> I thought most jurisdictions respected the value of IP and the legality of license agreements.

Actually, concerning the latter part (and this is what we are speaking about here) there is very good chance that you are sadly mistaken.

Don’t assume just because enforcement may be lax, that it’s legal.

It never occurred to you to think that “enforcement may be lax” simply because there is no legally binding force in such “agreement” in itself??? Some parts of it (for example, concerning distribution) may be, indeed, based upon the existing laws (and well-enforced, BTW), but some may be made up out of nothing and even contradict legislation in some jurisdictions. Just to give you an idea, virtually every EULA in existence disclaims any liability for any damages that may arise from the use of the software. AFAIK, this part would not stand a chance in most (if not in all) jurisdictions…

This is why I was speaking about the “imaginary jurisdiction” that some people seem to be living in…

In Soviet Russia, software license YOU!

Where is Mr.Kyler???

Anton Bassov