Forums Developers Bundled mirc.exe

I remember having read somewhere that it was preferred that mirc.exe was not bundled with scripts that you released without written permission.

I looked over the FAQ at mirc.com but could not find anything about this no more, so I was wondering if this still applies, and if so, who I will have to contact in regard to this, as I have a script aimed at users who have never used mIRC before, which I would liek to save the trouble of finding out how to load files when they wish to start using my work.


- Marius

Unfortunately not. You can have your users install mIRC and use a seperate installer to load your script, though.


See also: Khaled's FAQ

I saw another somewhat similar thread, though that user said he would be distributing it on a large scale it seems, what is it that differs between his and my request?

My bundle won't contain a registered mIRC, which means the users will get the 30 day trial that every user gets in any event, and it retains all the files mIRC installs (readme's, version history and whatnot).

As I believe was stated in the other topic you refer to, Khaled can be contacted regarding such requests and it is ultimately up to him whether or not to allow it.

The concern is that if mIRC is bundled with scripts, those scripts may be "dangerous" or the mIRC may be hacked. In either case, it can lead to a bad image for mIRC if people believe that mIRC is the cause of whatever problems those bundles caused.

You could distribute your script as multiple executables, the first a link to an official mirc download location, and the second your own installer.

Tell people to download both to the same location on there pc, then run YOUR installer.

Inside of your own installer, have it run the mirc installer (i suppose with a 'continue' button for users to click once mirc is done), then proceed to 'install' your scripts and modify the mirc.ini directly (to add the scripts), then if you want an option to start mirc.

This also gives your own installer the freedom to have multiple installation modes, eg upgrade/install script only, full (inc mirc), etc.

The other poster's request is no more valid than yours.. but that doesn't mean either one is valid at all. Both of these discussions should be held in private with Khaled though, not publically on the forum, so I suggest emailing him, as Khaled asked the last poster to do.

As a sidenote though, I imagine Khaled doesn't just grant anyone permission to redistribute the binary *just because they asked*-- if that were the case, then everybody would just bombard him with emails which wouldn't give him much time to analyze the scenario. In addition, from what I understood, the poster you're referring to was making a rather legitimate business request and was prepared to offer monetary compensation (I hope, for the poster's sake) complimenting the fact that the redistribution plan had a well defined end goal / target user and would not last indefinitely. This is as opposed to your request which seems to be asking for the privilege to redistribute the binary *indefinitely* with no defined target user or reason. Well, you do have a reason, but the reason is not really unique enough reason to deserve the privilege to redistribute the binary over every other script in the world, imho.

If you want to be taken seriously, I would email Khaled directly with a specific/unique reason for your request in addition to some kind of definite time when redistribution will end. I would hope Khaled would never allow indefinite redistribution of his software as part of any other software package.

Remember that whenever Khaled allows his software to be bundled with other software, he's taking a risk that the value of his own Intellectual Property remains intact, not only physically, but through things like Trademark Dilution for instance, among other types of IP dilution. Risk usually implies compensation, monetary or otherwise. He also has to make sure that his software will not be resold, etc. or that the software it's bundled with would make clear distinction between mIRC and any other components if they were to be sold alongside mIRC in the package. I'm no lawyer, but these are but a few things that he would have to watch out for. It's really for this reason that he can't just allow any request to be granted-- moreso than the reasons about integrity of the files, etc. I remember not so long ago when Khaled locked the name of the executable to always be "mirc*.exe" because people were renaming the binary and redistributing it under the veil that it was their work. This is exactly the kind of IP theft/trademark dilution that Khaled has to protect against.

PS. Not all of the above text applies to your specific case. I just thought I'd give a brief overview of the implications of redistributing the binary, given all the attention the topic has been getting recently.

Thank you for your replies, and I know what you mean, argv.

There is a specific target group, and a plan behind it all, so I will email Khaled concerning this, and take it from there.

Again, I appreciate everyones input.

No offense to anyone, ive been using mirc over 6 years and i saw over at least 300 scripts that have mirc included... no one has been fined anything, they were even very popular, and release on websites ...

And they all violate the EULA, what's your point? I know many people who break the speed limit, does that make it okay?

I think we should commend those who wish to release their scripts properly and under the terms that the author of the program theyre using wishes. It shows that the script author has character and illustrates a level of effort and attention to detail that is probably also present in the script itself.

http://nsis.sourceforge.net/Embedding_other_installers

Write a Nullsoft Installer, and pack within it the redistributable mIRC installer, as is.

Done.

That would still break the License Agreement.

Sure would.

I bet he'll sell it, too.

And claim to be Khaled.

He might even get rich.

Just make sure to include a huge MIRC BY KHALED splash screen, and an appropriately jesticulative, "I know I violated the license, please don't hurt me.", in the install agreement window.

That License clause is to deter magazine editors, over-eager script kids, and so forth.

Read between the lines.

This discussion is as old as mIRC.

In between the lines is blank space. I suggest you read the actual lines. On them are words and, unless you're the one who wrote them, you're hardly in a position to say what it is they really mean.

Bottom line: If someone can't figure out how to write an installer for their script that's user-friendly without breaking the mIRC licence agreement then you know exactly what to expect from the quality of the script too.

That is an excellent point.

Except that such self-policing is laughably mush-minded.

That statement is laughably inane.

Are you insinuating that any type of honour-system is "laughably mush-minded"? Or that if a law can't reliably be enforced by someone else it shouldn't exist? Whatever happened to morality and following things simply because it's the right thing to do.. that isn't mush, that's a step far above it.

Following a license has nothing to do with "policing", it has to do with following a license. You shouldn't have worry about how to stop yourself from breaking it, you should just be a mature responsible individual and respect the user agreement, is that hard?

Just dont do it.
Not only is it illegal and lame, But you lose respect, and losing respect means people dont say 'oh, theres a decent script at http://...../.

All good statements which I don't disagree with, entirely.

Moral standing is not broken by the honest fair use of making the process of installing both mIRC and a well-written script, very easy, by wrapping the process into a single user action. That DOES break the license. It is NOT amoral, in that case, to break the license. It WOULD be mush-minded to give this guy a hard-time for giving his users the easiest access to both mIRC and his own work.

There's no theft involved in that.

Theft would be bundling an unpacked mirc.exe, yes. I should have been clear; I was suggesting using NullSoft Installer to invoke the common mirc installer, then drop the script files in on top of that. You still see mIRC installer and its Licensing in all its shareware intention.

Thus, that is not theft, it is free marketing.

Fair use.

...

My subconcious looped this a bit.
/me lets it live or die as it may, now.

It's a fine idea in theory.

The only problem is that you will end up with a script that hasn't been updated in a while being packaged with a potentially archaic if not old version of mIRC (like 6.17, for instance) and users would think it's the latest one, with all it's bugs and fewer features. Khaled might not like that too much. I'm sure he'd rather a new user get the most up to date / untainted first impression possible. That's how I would feel about it.