7 replies to this topic

[gnikolic]

Hi everyone.

 

I need some legal stuff, web info (from MS for example) for using LiveXP and Win7PESE bootable disks.

 

 

thanx.

[Brito]

For the case of LiveXP, the best source of inspiration is intervention of Microsoft on the case of BartPE.

 

Since LiveXP works on the same sources as BartPE, we have a precedent where this usage is allowed by MS within some restrictions.

 

On the other hand, LiveXP is a project with a long history. We never had any problem reported by MS, as for legality this will depend on the jurisdiction and lawyers.

[gnikolic]

Thanx Nuno.

 

Can you give me some links to BartPE pages where is says about this?

 

What about Win7PESE? I can remeber that there was some topic with MS and WinBuilder. Can you give me some links to that because I cant found it on reboot.pro?

 

 

Thanx in advice.

[patsch]

the search function gives you this:

http://reboot.pro/to...ay/#entry160014

[Brito]

the search function gives you this:

http://reboot.pro/to...ay/#entry160014

On this example Microsoft did not reply any further. Both MediaFire and ChrisR assume that no reply is the same as legal consentment.

 

 

For BartPE you need to visit the original discussion on http://911cd.net and look for BartPE topics from around 2003. Personally, I use as support the precendent marked by UBC4Win, a bartPE derivative where the MS legal counselling worked actively to clear the legal doubts about the use of this platform. Look here: http://ubcd4win.com/msdocuments.htm

 

At the time, BartPE was called to attention because he included the same INF data used on the original Windows PE to build his version. He later solved this by moving the INF data inside the builder and changing the INF language format to something similar but not the same.

 

The problem is that BartPE used very similar mechanisms as Windows PE. With winbuilder, enough care was added to ensure that no resemblance existed. That is the reason for its own language (no inf) and independence from most Win32 API except for basic operations such as file copy and registry access.

[Wonko the Sane]

Actually NO,

still around the same mish-mash of Licensing(EULA)/Unredistributable files distribution/Copyright/Trademark:

http://reboot.pro/to...-here/?p=113914

each of them are different aspects.

 

The problem raised with the original BartPE was the redistribution of some non-redistributable files.

The problem with the UBCD4WIN was the use of Windows® name.

 

Wonko

 

[Brito]

Good find Wonko. As reference, my reply on that thread just above yours brings more detail about the BartPE context: http://reboot.pro/to...-here/?p=113907

 

BartPE was escrutinized by MS and so was UBCD4win.

[Wonko the Sane]

As reference, my reply on that thread just above yours brings more detail about the BartPE context: http://reboot.pro/to...-here/?p=113907

Yes, and mine before that brings even more:

http://reboot.pro/to...-here/?p=113885

 

Wonko