Is patching the uxtheme.dll illegal?

[gflores]

From what I can tell, it's no, but I'm not sure. If it is, are there any other FREE alternatives to using .msstyles?

[Mystical112]

well patching the uxtheme.dll is the best way... and free... and i dont think its illegal... i just modded it to suit u...

[HellBender]

Nope, not illegal. It may be immoral in some ways in that uxtheme had to be reverse engineered to crack, but really, its the best way to go.

Can you cite the section of the EULA which prohibits patching? If there were such a clause, there would be a whole LOT of things that break the EULA.

[NienorGT]

It's break the EULA yes...

Any "PATCH" that aren't done by MS is illegal...

[ally_n_2000]

I agree, i dont think that patching it is illegal. If you modify something you legally bought/own for your personal use, i dont think there is a problem. For example, if i bought a bike, and modified a part, would that be deemed illegal? No

[#Michael]

I agree, i dont think that patching it is illegal.  If you modify something you legally bought/own for your personal use, i dont think there is a problem.  For example, if i bought a bike, and modified a part, would that be deemed illegal? No

586785216[/snapback]

See that's where you are somewhat wrong. You didn't actually buy XP, you just bought a license to use it. You didn't buy the code to it or in your reference the 'bike' just the ability to ride it. So continuing your reference you bought a license to ride that bike with an understanding that it comes as is, any modifying of it is illegal since it is actually owned by someone else.

That being said, is MS going to come after you since it is on you pc, more than likely not. But you have to ask yourself do you like to do something that you know is not right?

[flyakite]

From what I can tell, it's no, but I'm not sure. If it is, are there any other FREE alternatives to using .msstyles?

586785041[/snapback]

Who cares? Does Microsoft really care? No. There are thousands upon thousands of people using patched uxtheme.dll files. Microsoft doesn't really care.

It is against their EULA, and as someone else said you only purchased a license, you don't actually own the code.

But seriously, think of all the stupid laws out there. Some of them are just plain stupid. A law is just a rule some other person just like you made. It's not something God himself said.

Out of all the crimes out there and illegal activity and piracy, who really gives a damn about a patched uxtheme.dll? If MS truly cared they would devise a new system. Yet low and behold uxtheme.dll is still the mechanism to control visual styles in Vista. They aren't concerned.

[skybl4ck]

if microsoft cared they probably would have created an update to fix it. besides, only a minimal amount of people even mod windows.

[gflores]

Ok, well, I just want/need to know if this is legal. After reading the replies, it now appears it is illegal. Is that correct?

[NeoXY]

If its leagle enough for Neowin to allow it on the Forums, than it must be leagle enough for MS too..that's how I look at it because I know Neowin have 0 tolerence for this kinda of things. So if it shows up on the forum, its probabely good enough for MS

[gflores]

dark kyuubi: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, which is why I thought it was legal to begin with.

[ev0|]

Microsoft discourage it, but its known and tolerated.

[NienorGT]

Nope, not illegal. It may be immoral in some ways in that uxtheme had to be reverse engineered to crack, but really, its the best way to go.

Can you cite the section of the EULA which prohibits patching? If there were such a clause, there would be a whole LOT of things that break the EULA.

586785062[/snapback]

5. LIMITATION ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Product, except and only to the extent that it is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

Microsoft Site

To do the patch, the patch maker as disassembled the DLL...

I say this becuse you need to open the DLL in a HexEditor and change some strings...

- At offset 0x00009C27, change "02" to "00";
- At offset 0x0000B624 to 0x0000B629, change the string "0F 8C 80 00 00 00" to
"90 90 90 90 90 90";
- At offset 0x0000B6BB to 0x0000B6C2, change the string "81 EC 80 00 00 00 56 57" to
"33 F6 8B C6 C9 C2 08 00";
- At offset 0x0000B71E and 0x0000B71F, change the string "7C 38" to "90 90".

So in term of LAWS it's illegal, but as lot have said, Who cares?

Even NW host a patcher to do the job...

[flyakite]

- At offset 0x00009C27, change "02" to "00";
- At offset 0x0000B624 to 0x0000B629, change the string "0F 8C 80 00 00 00" to
"90 90 90 90 90 90";
- At offset 0x0000B6BB to 0x0000B6C2, change the string "81 EC 80 00 00 00 56 57" to
"33 F6 8B C6 C9 C2 08 00";
- At offset 0x0000B71E and 0x0000B71F, change the string "7C 38" to "90 90".

So in term of LAWS it's illegal, but as lot have said, Who cares?

Even NW host a patcher to do the job...

586785967[/snapback]

Unless that patch is for a 64bit version it is totally incorrect. For all 32bit builds, there is one hex string per file that needs to be changed, that is it. The hex to be changed and what it needs to be changed are always the same, it's only the offest that changes in different file versions.

Why do I know this? Because A) I have built a patcher, which is in a thread probably a few pages back B) I have talked to Rafael Riviera, who does the initial patching discovery.

[Gavin001]

See that's where you are somewhat wrong.  You didn't actually buy XP, you just bought a license to use it.  You didn't buy the code to it or in your reference the 'bike' just the ability to ride it.  So continuing your reference you bought a license to ride that bike with an understanding that it comes as is, any modifying of it is illegal since it is actually owned by someone else.

That being said, is MS going to come after you since it is on you pc, more than likely not.  But you have to ask yourself do you like to do something that you know is not right?

586785308[/snapback]

Wat a load of crap :rofl:

[Windows X]

Well, even some MS workers reported about bugs for patcher. So it won't be illegal as long as everyone agree with it. That's the world it is.

[fascist]

the original poster probably got xp illegaly so whats a' matter?

[StudentR]

It's illegal but you can write to Microsoft. May be they will release this patch as a part of this software

[Lasker]

It's illegal but you can write to Microsoft. May be they will release this patch as a part of this software

586788088[/snapback]

I was thinking to ask to some microsoft customer services about this, I will like to know what they think about it :ninja:

[Mx]

They don't officially endorse it but they don't mind. The leading Vista designer said that it isn't a main priority, but they hope to leave in areas for skinners to make their own skins for Vista. No word about instant usage of 3rd Party skins but they like some of the work the skinning community creates.

[Lee G. Veteran]

I've heard MS don't mind. Anyway, for alternatives for .msstyles there's WindowBlinds.

I prefer .msstyles tbh :/

[NienorGT]

Unless that patch is for a 64bit version it is totally incorrect. For all 32bit builds, there is one hex string per file that needs to be changed, that is it.  The hex to be changed and what it needs to be changed are always the same, it's only the offest that changes in different file versions.

Why do I know this?  Because A) I have built a patcher, which is in a thread probably a few pages back B) I have talked to Rafael Riviera, who does the initial patching discovery.

586786321[/snapback]

lol... I don't know me... took this in the net somewhere... lol

It was like exemple... lol at Virtual Plastic that have put this...

http://www.virtualplastic.net/html/win_xp.html

:D :D

[hydroxine]

Wat a load of crap  :rofl:

586787465[/snapback]

why is your quoted text a load of crap?

it may not be comfortable to hear,

but it's reality.

;)

[SamNeeds]

Surely its not going to "affect" Microsoft. If all else, all it does is affect us? I realise it breaks the EULA but from a literal point of view, it doesn't affect MS in any way?

Edited November 11, 2005 by SamNeeds

[kwapaw]

It may be against Microsoft's EULA, but I don't think they mind. If anything, skinning ability provides more exposure for Windows and allows some very good ideas to surface. Not to mention it gives users the option to change the boring default VS should they want to.