93 replies to this topic

[pscEx]

@Phox
After reading your post, I needed some time to think about it.
When I wanted to reply, I saw Jaclaz's reply.
I do not have anything to add to Jaclaz's post. It explains my opinion.
I just want to clarify:

In the XP - W2003 world with PE 1.x nowhere there is a license issue that it is not allowed to build your own PE environment from your (licensed) source CD.
And nowhere there is a statement that you are not allowed to use the PE as a 'standard installation OS'.
(I am not familar with PE 2.x / Vista)

For me, as a result: Building a PE from my licensed XP / W2003 source CD is 100% legal, even if the way 'how to build' is a 'Non-M$' program.
Peter

[MedEvil]

In the XP - W2003 world with PE 1.x nowhere there is a license issue that it is not allowed to build your own PE environment from your (licensed) source CD.
And nowhere there is a statement that you are not allowed to use the PE as a 'standard installation OS'.
(I am not familar with PE 2.x / Vista)

Sorry Peter, creating a PE may be legal but using it, not! Acording to EULA you need a valid license for every Windows your running.
It's nowhere different from running XP in a VM on a XP machine. You need two licenses to do this.

And on further thinking, i'm not quit sure that creating PE is absolutely legal too, as we circumvent the 24 hour limit and the handle limitation.
Circumventing of deliberately creted limitations, like copy protection for instance, is in most countries illegal.

[thunn]

I have just completed a script for PowerISO with Virtual Drive Manager.
Added to the script is a 7-zip self-extractor with required files. Like the TrueImage script, users must acquire a license ( in this case the app may run in demo mode ).
The Licence file is of couse included, it reads as follows ( bear with me ):

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR PowerISO.



IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement is a legal agreement between 

you (either an individual or a single entity) and PowerISO Computing Inc. for the product 

identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, 

printed materials, and "online" or electronic documentation ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT"). By 

installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by 

the terms of this End-User License Agreement, do not install or use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; 

you may however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund.



SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE



The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, 

as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed,

not sold. [i]You may not rent, lease, or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT[/i]. You may permanently 

transfer all your rights under this End-User License Agreement, provided you retain no 

copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and this End-User License Agreement, and 

the recipient agrees to the terms of this End-User License Agreement



GRANT OF LICENSE



This program version may be installed on a maximum of two computers, so long as it is ONLY 

running on one system at any time: i.e. one installation at home and one installation at 

the office and used only by the licensee. The simultaneous use of this SOFTWARE PRODUCT by 

multiple personnel requires additional licenses. Use of this SOFTWARE PRODUCT over an 

internal network requires separate license for each user. The licensee shall not use, copy, 

rent, lease, sell, modify, decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or transfer the 

licensed SOFTWARE PRODUCT except as provided in this agreement. Any such unauthorized use 

shall result in immediate termination of this license.



All licenses will be issued in the name of the institution, company or school. Each additional 

license also allows a single user to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT at home.



LIABILITY



We try to keep my SOFTWARE PRODUCT as bug free as possible. However, it is a general rule, 

Murphy's, that no software is ever error free, and the number of errors increases with the 

complexity of the program. We cannot guarantee that this SOFTWARE PRODUCT will run in every 

environment, on any Windows compatible machine, or together with any other application, 

without producing errors. Any liability for damage of any sort is hereby denied. In no event 

shall PowerISO Computing Inc. or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, 

or consequential damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of 

business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary 

loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. In any case, the 

liability is limited to the registration fee. Please evaluate this SOFTWARE PRODUCT with not 

critical data. Should you detect errors before registration, the user accepts the SOFTWARE 

PRODUCT errors after registration. Any description of SOFTWARE PRODUCT errors will be accepted, 

but we cannot guarantee that the errors can be corrected.



Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.



PowerISO Computing, Inc.



The PowerISO Team

It seems to me in this case, as in most, that the software manufacturer is much less concerned with the distribution of unaltered and unlicensed versions. The focus is on migration of the license itself.

You may not rent, lease, or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

I believe this refers to the software with valid license included. i.e., what you would find uploaded to rapidshare by some warez monkey.
As long as we do not included licensed software in our scripts or full versions that would only be possessed by a licensed user, we should be ok. This of course does address the gray area that may or may not exist depending on your outlook.

Most software manufacturers are well aware that casual copying promotes their product and are not so concerned with redistributed demo versions. With regard to products like foxit, it's easy enough to grab a .zip from the net if we must.

On one hand I feel like we're opening a few cans of worms here. However, we need to make sure the encoding system is not used as a warez vehicle.

[phox]

In the XP - W2003 world with PE 1.x nowhere there is a license issue that it is not allowed to build your own PE environment from your (licensed) source CD.
And nowhere there is a statement that you are not allowed to use the PE as a 'standard installation OS'.

Even if that is the case it is "morally" questionable!
WB PE is not the "standard installation OS"!

For me, as a result: Building a PE from my licensed XP / W2003 source CD is 100% legal,
even if the way 'how to build' is a 'Non-M$' program.

For me to, but that doesn't change the reality.

[Alexei]

Let's define our policy. I propose following:
1. Boot-Land (B-L) should not encorage end-users to unlawful activities.
2. B-L should not do unlawful things.
Surprizingly, that seems to be enough
What end-users do with their PCs is not B-L business.
The only things B-L should take care of are:
- Not to make and supply an instruments targeted to illegal activity.
- Obey Copyright of the owners of the files it hosts.

Laws at end-user locations may be different.
3rd party licenses may be unenforceable.
Laws related to "intellectual property" are so unclear that it's often impossible to determine legality of particular action without court trial.
So, let's stay on a safe side at B-L and let end-users do whatever they want at their own risk.
The EUED approach protects B-L in a way that does not affect WB users. Isn't it what we need?

Alexei

[phox]

@phox

Though your opinions on the matter at hand are appreciated , these three things need to be made more accurate (bolded italic are my additions):
Please, do not reply to this post, this thread has had enough diversions, if you feel like discussing the legality (or illegality) of Winbuilder, start a new thread.

jaclaz

Please refrain in the future from editing my posts
and ordering me what I should and should not do!

If you don't like my posts ignore or use your
power to delete them.

Thank you.

[Alexei]

Even if that is the case it is "morally" questionable!
WB PE is not the "standard installation OS"!
For me to, but that doesn't change the reality.

I remember this board had several discussions about that.

Take a look at couple examples:
It's not legal to drink alcohol on US streets, unless the bottle is inside a paper bag.
It's not legal to drink alcohol on Russian streets, but drinking parfume that contains alcohol is legal.
I believe, that's because in some case it's impossible to make a law that prohibit s all undesirable activities, but does not affect "normal" life.
I believe, building PE falls into this category, i.e. MS would be glad to prohibit it, but consequences of this prohibition would be so negative to end-users and ITs that MS prefers just ignore custom buit PEs

Alexei

[was_jaclaz]

Please refrain in the future from editing my posts
and ordering me what I should and should not do!

For the record:
I did not edit your post.
I did not order you anything, simply asked politely to refrain to contribute to going off-topic.



What I am trying to do, and evidently failing to , is to find opinions and suggestions on HOW to do something with the lesser inconveniences for boot-land, for .script developers and for end users.

The WHY or WHY NOT do not belong here, if you or anyone else, want to discuss the legality or illegality of Winbuilder, you are very welcome to do so, in another thread.

Till now in this thread I have seen bagfuls of philosophy, lots of theories, some unneded nastyness, but if you skim through it, the actual ideas on topic are very few, and they all come from Alexei, with contributions from psc and Nuno and some interesting points raised by thuun.

Please, ALL, can we stay on topic?


jaclaz

[Brito]

PE environments, as the name say are environments meant to run while windows is (pre)installing.

Microsoft has no objections to custom PE boot disks - there was a letter from MS to bart because he based his builder on the Windows PE construction model and regular XP install environment, at the time windows PE was very "high tech" and only reachable to a few companies.

This was a gap from MS at the time since they didn't predicted that someone would be able to "tweak" their installation this way. The only legal objection found by MS was the fact that bart's builder followed INF files whose format was true MS property related to windows PE 1.xx (including some files from MS he also included on his distribution)

After changing slightly this format on his own inf files with a custom syntax - eventually these build instructions were also incorporated (hidden?) inside the binaries of bart's PE Builder but they still gave origin to the currently used syntax on bart pe plugins.

Besides the obvious differences between .INF syntax - I'd guess that bartPE .INF plugins are loaded into memory and converted back to MS .INF files and processed with MS tools just as initial versions did and MS hasn't spoken a word about this fact either.

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

There have been dozens of talks about this matter before.. And I also never understood why a license is required since this custom PE boot disk is never installed as designed by the manufacturer (runs in pre-install mode remember?) - meaning that MS will also never give any support even if I have a valid license to install the OS.

They can do whatever they wish and can't change the XP EULA, but we should probably look on the freely available Windows PE 2.0 and understand that even MS is willing to help users instead of restricting them from OS recovery.

-----------

I thought the discussion here was meant to discuss the inclusion of copyrighted files inside scripts that are later made available on the downloads section without permission from the owner - we've all agreed it was not correct, now it's only a matter of working to find those free/shareware alternatives or proper authorization from the authors to post them here..

----

...
It's not legal to drink alcohol on Russian streets, but drinking parfume that contains alcohol is legal.
...

(much worser than being ilegal is the risk of upseting your wife since two issues might now arise:

• You drink her parfume on the street and don't refill her stock with another expensive bottle
• You get home with a women's parfume scent and she'll get really suspicious for a week (to say the least)

)

[MedEvil]

It's not legal to drink alcohol on US streets, unless the bottle is inside a paper bag.

Alexei i think it's not quit this way. Drinking in public is prohibited. But if you put your booze in some nontransparent bag, a cop can't see that it's booze and he has no right to search your bag. For all he knows it could contain apple juice.

MS would be glad to prohibit it, but consequences of this prohibition would be so negative to end-users and ITs that MS prefers just ignore custom buit PEs

Well it would mostly harm M$ itself, i think.

[Alexei]

Alexei i think it's not quit this way. Drinking in public is prohibited. But if you put your booze in some nontransparent bag, a cop can't see that it's booze and he has no right to search your bag. For all he knows it could contain apple juice.
Well it would mostly harm M$ itself, i think.

That's exactly what I'm talking about
Drinking in public is OK if a cop can't see that!
Why should we use general declarations instead of applying scientific approach, i.e. observe and analyze reality.
If some requirement is unenforceable it doesn't exist, otherwise I could write "by reading this post you agree to pay me $10000", then go to a court and collect a lot of $$ from everybody who read it, including judge
The reason why I'm writing all this is that for practical reasons we should use following formula

"legal"="can not be punished"

Let's be realistic and use scientific approach to legality

Alexei
PS
What would happen if I send following e-mail to MS:
"By replying this e-mail you agree to pay me $100,000"
and then receive auto reply

[phox]

For the record:
I did not edit your post.

You just misquoted it with your additions!

I did not order you anything, simply asked politely to refrain to contribute to going off-topic.

Read again your post, but carefully this time!

The WHY or WHY NOT do not belong here, if you or anyone else, want to discuss the legality or illegality of Winbuilder, you are very welcome to do so, in another thread.

I have never questioned legality of WB. Read my post again, but this time carefully!

What I am trying to do, and evidently failing to , is to find opinions and suggestions on HOW to do something with the lesser inconveniences for boot-land, for .script developers and for end users.

You are obviously excellent professional (otherwise Nuno will not delegate to you Admin authority),
but your arrogance prevents you to demonstrate fully that professionalism! That is why you are failing!

And for the same reason I will refrain from polemic with you in the future!

Thank you!

[phox]

I see problem of legality much simpler than it is expressed in this post:

1. WinBuilder is 100% legal as it is sophisticated scripter made by Nuno.

2. Legality issues come with scripts and to overcome them:

3. Files should not be embedded unless script developer is author
and would like to publish them for use free of charge.

4. Besides common elements generated by MakeScript, scripts should have
specifics like additional dll’s, REG settings and whatever extras .

5. Within the script should also be explanation what files are necessary and
where and how user could obtain and prepare them.

In this way Forum will be free of legality issues and user should take care about them.
There is no need for complex technical solution or additional review entity.

[pscEx]

I see problem of legality much simpler than it is expressed in this post:

1. WinBuilder is 100% legal as it is sophisticated scripter made by Nuno.

2. Legality issues come with scripts and to overcome them:

3. Files should not be embedded unless script developer is author
and would like to publish them for use free of charge.

4. Besides common elements generated by MakeScript, scripts should have
specifics like additional dll's, REG settings and whatever extras .

5. Within the script should also be explanation what files are necessary and
where and how user could obtain and prepare them.

In this way Forum will be free of legality issues and user should take care about them.
There is no need for complex technical solution or additional review entity.

Some simplification:

1. WinBuilder is 100% legal as it is sophisticated scripter made by Nuno.

3. Files should not be embedded unless script developer is sure that embedding is legal.

6. (replaces 5.) It is in the responsibility of the script's author to give the end user a way to have all needed files.

7. (optional) The author adds in the [Main] section: Attachements= Private | Legal

Peter

[phox]

3. Files should not be embedded unless script developer is sure that embedding is legal.

I am against embedding for three reasons:

a. Legality worry should be transferred to of user,
as he is anyhow responsible for legality of use of finished Build.

b. Scripts will be simpler, smaller, and consequently faster for download.

c. Why embed files, which is much easier just to copy locally.

[pscEx]

I am against embedding for three reasons:

a. Legality worry should be transferred to of user,
as he is anyhow responsible for legality of use of finished Build.

b. Scripts will be simpler, smaller, and consequently faster for download.

c. Why embed files, which is much easier just to copy locally.

Phox!

You brought me to an idea:
As known, nativeEx_barebone is less a 'production' project than a 'development' project.
(If I have space enough on my server) I'll offer a nativeEx_barebone clone which does not embed my programs, but offers them for download 'anywhere'.

Then the forum may test and decide.

Sorry, this needs some work. So it will be finished within at least 5 Latin minutes (I estimate Tuesday)

Peter

[phox]

(If I have space enough on my server) I'll offer a nativeEx_barebone clone which does not embed my programs, but offers them for download 'anywhere'.

Some time ago (before this discussion), I have reworked
all my Application scripts in a manner I have explained.

Now I have Programs Archive with some 180 programs,
which I use for all Projects. Scripts are generated with
Pedro Le script generator with just essentials included.

In this way there are no repetition of embedded application files
in all Projects and consequently Projects are much, much smaller.

In addition this approach gives me possibility to update applications
without changing scripts.

[pscEx]

Some time ago (before this discussion), I have reworked
all my Application scripts in a manner I have explained.

Now I have Programs Archive with some 180 programs,
which I use for all Projects. Scripts are generated with
Pedro Le script generator with just essentials included.

In this way there are no repetition of embedded application files
in all Projects and consequently Projects are much, much smaller.

In addition this approach gives me possibility to update applications
without changing scripts.

Interesting (anywhere in my mind there are similar 'fata morgana' pictures).
And I want to bring them to reality.

Do you use still the good old *.Link ?

Peter

[was_jaclaz]

You are obviously excellent professional (otherwise Nuno will not delegate to you Admin authority),
but your arrogance prevents you to demonstrate fully that professionalism! That is why you are failing!

And for the same reason I will refrain from polemic with you in the future!

Thank you!

Phox, I did what I could, and as transparently as possible, to try to keep the thread on topic.

As ANYONE can see, there is not anything "arrogant" in this, just an attempt to keep this thread under control.

However, even if it was true, you can disagree and object to my way of Administering this board without insulting me.

Since it seems like my way of trying to have a civil discussion about this topic is not appreciated, I will close this thread, as is.

THIS TOPIC IS CLOSED

Here is a new one:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=3244

First post is the same, any one interested can post there.

I will not make any other post nor any moderating action in the new thread, in order to let everyone do whatever they want.

jaclaz