Can We Run 4nec2 on Linux? See WARNINGS here

[300ohm]

Im having my son work on the Linux solution, heh)

Well, he came over and it turns out putting 4nec2 on Ubuntu 9.04 is easier than I thought, and simpler than the directions over at Arie Voors site.

The key was just to download two M$ visual basic 6 runtime files : msvbvm60.dll and msflxgrd.ocx and copy them to the 4nec2/exe directory.

So basically just install Ubuntu, install wine, install 4nec2 and 4nec2x, and download and copy over the above two files.
Then from the terminal : wine 4nec2x.exe

Stampeder provided a good link : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...uide,2293.html for windows users to get started in Ubuntu linux.

[mlord]

Unfortunately, that (running M$ runtime files in Wine) sounds suspiciously like software piracy.
You may want to edit that post before the mods see it.

Cheers

[firimari]

Nah, they distribute the MS Visual Basic runtime for free.

[mlord]

Originally Posted by firimari

Nah, they distribute the MS Visual Basic runtime for free.

Hardly. It comes with a rather restrictive License Agreement.
I wonder what it says inside there about this?

Originally Posted by Microsoft

If Microsoft makes Software available on this Web Site without a License Agreement, you may use such Software to design, develop and test your programs to run on Microsoft products and services.

If Microsoft makes any code marked as “sample” available on this Web Site without a License Agreement, then that code is licensed to you under the terms of the Microsoft Limited Public License.

The Software is made available for download solely for use by end users according to the License Agreement or these TOU. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement or these TOU is expressly prohibited.
...

Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.

[300ohm]

I have to agree with firimani. Freely distributed runtime files, on a discontinued product, are another whole can of tricky gray area worms for M$. Despite the legaleze, I dont think their lawyers would touch that area with a 1000 ft pole, heh. M$ is walking a fine line to avoid being monopolistic. If they wanted to, they would have gone after Wine a long time ago, but didnt.

you may use such Software to design, develop and test your programs to run on Microsoft products and services.

4nec2, at least sections of it, had to have been developed using VB6, so that applied there in the development part of the program. For M$ to say that the developed program cant be used on anything other than Windows is like purchasing a wrench from a GM dealer, and the dealer saying that you cant use that wrench to repair a Ford product, (if its appropriate) heh.

[mlord]

Originally Posted by 300ohm

I have to agree with firimani. Freely distributed runtime files ..

That's the point. They are not freely distributed. But rather, they are distributed with clear restrictions on use. Yes, those restrictions sound petty, but it is the right of the software owner to dictate them.

For M$ to say that the developed program cant be used on anything other than Windows is like purchasing a wrench from a GM dealer, and the dealer saying that you cant use that wrench to repair a Ford product, (if its appropriate) heh.

They're not saying that. We are all free to use the 4nec2 program under it's own release restrictions, independent of Microsoft. No issues there.

But we are not free to use the Microsoft run-time libraries on non-Microsoft operating systems. That is made very clear on the Microsoft download site, as quoted earlier in this thread.

The difference being, if the 4nec2 developers want to be free of the need for their users to pirate the Microsoft libs, then they will have to pay Microsoft to license those libs and distribute them with the program itself (or statically link them into the program binary).

This is extremely important to understand and get right.

Cheers

Mark

[300ohm]

Just quickly Googling, I didnt find anywhere to even purchase the old VB6 runtime files. For its replacement, VisualStudio/VisualBasic.NET, yes, but not the old VB6.
In fact, M$ provides work arounds when encountering the "License Not Found" error. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/177799

On one forum, someone mentioned that he recalled M$ giving away the VB6 license in 2003. Of course, we cant go by recollections, heh.

Obviously this VB5/VB6 runtime would be problem for many Wine applications. Isnt there a Wine solution ? (Im a linux noob, heh)

[firimari]

There are a few NEC2 visualization tools on linux. They all suck. (No offense to the devlopers, who have done a great job. When the tools work, they work fine. I'm just very adept at making models that break them.)

Also note that the whole SYmbol record that we're so fond of using here doesn't actually exist in the NEC2 specification. It was added by Arie Voors to enable his very nice model parameter space search functionality.

As for the VB6 license issues, I'm not going to get into that discussion. Clearly I need to work harder on my Java tools and get them working with SYmbols. Java-flex, here I come. (Don't expect anything out of me from this work for months. I'm still working on the matrix inversions for the Cell Processor.)

[mlord]

Originally Posted by 300ohm

Just quickly Googling, I didnt find anywhere to even purchase the old VB6 runtime files. For its replacement, VisualStudio/VisualBasic.NET, yes, but not the old VB6.
In fact, M$ provides work arounds when encountering the "License Not Found" error. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/177799

They're "sold" (actually, licensed) with various Microsoft products, and no-cost replacements are available for download from Microsoft.

But they are not available for legal use on non-Microsoft operating systems without special (paid) agreement from Microsoft. That clause was added to the licensing *because* of competition from Linux / Wine / etc..

Cheers

[300ohm]

They're "sold" (actually, licensed) with various Microsoft products, and no-cost replacements are available for download from Microsoft.

Yeah, I know I have legal and licensed copies of M$ VB6 runtimes from various M$ products Ive purchased in the past. Since Im not selling any software and only using those files on my own system for my own use, I would think that would clearly fall under the Fair Use rules (IANAL).

Ive googled and havent found any M$ court cases on the matter. Does anyone know of any ? Its one thing to write a EULA like that, but another for it to stand up in a court of law.
The M$ settlement with the DOJ in 2001 :

On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

IIRC, the EU settlement with M$ was even nastier, heh.

On 22 October 2007, Microsoft announced that it would comply and not appeal the decision any more,[19] and Microsoft did not appeal within the required two months as of 17 November 2007.[20]

Microsoft announced that it will demand 0.4 percent of the revenue (rather than 5.95 percent) in patent-licensing royalties, only from commercial vendors of interoperable software and promised not to seek patent royalties from individual open source developers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case

[mlord]

Those are for APIs, not software.

If you want to look for a software suit, look into Microsoft vs. TomTom last month (TomTom settled out of court).

Licenses *do* hold up quite well in courts of law around the world. Otherwise Linux would not be possible -- it relies upon a good and strict license for survival. Which is why I recognise that this stuff is important.

Just because Linux can be "freely" downloaded and used, doesn't mean there are no legal restrictions upon what you can do with it. It has a rather detailed license, distributed with every single copy, that explains it all.

Cheers

[300ohm]

Those are for APIs, not software.

Hmm, you wouldnt consider msvbvm60.dll and msflxgrd.ocx APIs ?

Just because Linux can be "freely" downloaded and used, doesn't mean there are no legal restrictions upon what you can do with it. It has a rather detailed license, distributed with every single copy, that explains it all.

Yes, I know and agree. But in the case of M$, it looks like they have been court ordered to play nice with the other kids in the sandbox, heh.

look into Microsoft vs. TomTom last month (TomTom settled out of court).

Of course, Tom Tom falls into the realm of "commercial vendors of interoperable software" and not open source.

This agreement puts an end to the litigation between our two companies," said Peter Spours, Director of IP Strategy and Transactions at TomTom, in a statement. "It is drafted in a way that ensures TomTom's full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2, and thus reaffirms our commitment to the open source community."

Although the pact may settles things for TomTom, it adds further questions marks for where Microsoft is headed with its broader claims against Linux. The software maker has refused to go into detail as to what actions it might take against other companies that use Linux commercially.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html
This will be interesting to watch. I can see the mobs with the pitchforks coming out if M$ tries to go too far.

[mlord]

Originally Posted by 300ohm

Hmm, you wouldnt consider msvbvm60.dll and msflxgrd.ocx APIs ?

No, they're implementations of APIs, not the APIs themselves. The EU rulings require M$ to explain how to talk to their software, but they do not require them to license the software itself for free.

This will be interesting to watch. I can see the mobs with the pitchforks coming out if M$ tries to go too far.

Yeah. But it will happen someday, as a last gasp when their products slump too far. Just like it did with SCO. And likely with the same outcome, too.

[300ohm]

Another ruling linked to by winehq.org, the Bilski case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...81102011538422

It seems logical to me, that a place like winehq would buy the APIs for use with wine. (from donations ?) But of course, if M$ was basing the cost on % of revenue, theyre completely out of luck, heh.

[hankcurt]

I'm going to throw my two cents in since this is a very frustrating area for us Linux users.

mlord is correct about licensing for developers. They must purchase a properly licensed copy of Visual Basic Studio which gives them a license key that allows them to include a copy of the VB runtime files and control dlls in their end products. This gives them the right to distribute the files to end users. The end users do not have the right to distribute the runtime, but have a right to use it.

That being said, once one program has installed the runtime libraries and dll files, they may be used by other programs that did not install them. I installed 4nec2 on wine, and it just worked. It wasn't until I saw this thread that I looked at the system32 folder and saw that the visual basic files and flexgrid control were already there. Apparently sometime in the past, I installed a program that contained them (the flexgrid control was a very old version (1999) which still works, but has security vulnerabilities). Wish I could tell you which program it was that gave them to me.

Now for one final iteration of "That being said", I looked around and CNet, which is a reputable site that contains downloads of shareware and freeware and does pay attention to license details, has the visual basic 6.0 runtime download available. On the download page, they show the License as Free, and Limitations as None. Just for kicks, I downloaded it to see if a license was included. The installer just pops up and asks if you really want to install it, and after clicking yes, it puts msvbvm60.dll in wine's system32 folder, No license agreement ever appears.

For the flexgrid control, I did find it on the web, but not from any source that clearly indicated a legal download. The most legal way to obtain it would be to find a program that includes it and install that on WINE.

Finally, while Microsoft may restrict the development licensed versions of the runtime to only be run on Windows environments, I do not believe that they can force developers to add that same license restriction to the programs they distribute with the runtime included for end users.