In case some of you are thinking about taking a peek at it, PLEASE think again !
If you do it will be a risk for any open source project you might contribute code to in the future.
Printable View
In case some of you are thinking about taking a peek at it, PLEASE think again !
If you do it will be a risk for any open source project you might contribute code to in the future.
I downloaded it just for grepping for the swear words; seems to be pretty "clean" code, and well commented too! I don't understand any programming language besides html (if one can call that an programming language) so I won't burn my eyes anyway;-)
But I agree, DO NOT COPY any code from ms or you will most likely have your project shut down and will have to face huge jailtime/fines; dunno about getting inspiration from that code though..
Even looking at it is a bad thing (unless you are sure you will never do any programming at all). In any big project there are bound to be some small parts of code that end up looking the same way even though you aren't doing any copying. If you have seen the M$ code they are likely to try to use that against you, which can get really nasty even if their claim is valid or not. The current SCO vs IBM case stands as a warning example. Even though everyone with half a brain understands by now that SCO's claim is bogus they still cause some damage. Just imagine how much worse it could be if they had as much money as M$ does.Quote:
Originally Posted by EmDee
And that not the best of it he is putting his friends at the same risk if they ever visit him at the location where the code is then they are just as tainted because they have access to the code at an unrestricted location so you can not be sure they did not look at it either.Quote:
Originally Posted by windos_no_thanks
Admitting in open forums that you have downloaded the code and are in possesion of it is also not a great idea, in my opinion. Given Knoppix's rising popularity and constant presence in the press it seems likely that some M$ employee somewhere is reading the knoppix forum. M$ is going to be looking for scapegoats to file charges against, don't you think? Or at least people to "punish" to make others reconsider downloading it themselves.
Was that a knock at your door?
Ok, guys, you really got me scared now! I doing a wipe -r ./mssource as I write this. pheeww. <- I feel better now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mightydavefish
Thanks anyway, I probably wouldn't have thought about this twice without you!
I am totally sure MS has better things to do then chase after anyone in this forum that is not part of the dev team. If I DLed the code, what will they be able to do? I have no money for them to take, I am only one guy in a town of 4,000 hicks that don't know trackpants and rubber boots don't go together. If I had something of value, it would be my collection of bandanas and dust bunnies! Small potatoes are just small potatoes. I am of no use to them.
If I was advertising their code, selling it, using it, posting it or claiming to use it to hack, well then I can see some sort of involvement. But if I said I had it saved on my HD. I don't think it would be worth them chasing me all the way here just to spank me. It wouldn't profit them in any way!
But in case I am wrong... I don't have any MS code on my computer! Ummm, WAIT! Yes I do!!! Crap!!! I have the whole OS sitting here! In full code!!! I am using it right now!!! Crap!!! I'm Friggin' sunk! MS is going to kick my hoss!
Scoff at the idea all you want but there are real problems with looking at any proprietary code. Just go into a job interview and drop a BTW I was looking at the source code to windows the other day and see how far that idea or even the possibility of it having happened gets you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunkah
Stephen,
You are so right...
Just look at the music industry, if you write a song, and something just "sounds like" someone elses, they give you the third degree, just to see if you "heard of" the other song.
I think the term is called "tainted"
If you program with computers, just a mere mention of "seeing" someone elses code, can have lawsuites growing out of your ears - even if you never really "saw" anything, you could be inundated [sp] by court hits, to the point your career is in drink. A lot of "software" companies make you sign legal documents, stating that not only what you create is "sole property" of the company, but that you created this product out of your own accord. (use to work as a computer programmer, as a profession, and the legal "mumbo-jumbo" you go through. One of the "big" papers you sign is usually a non-disclosure, and can be as high as 5 years "after" leaving a company, before you can "possibly" work for a competitor.
Viewing proprietary code is a serious thing. The same as the Software Police. But, if you are just "John or Jane Doe", they would rather go after "bigger" fish. One final point though, considering my hypothesis about M$ looking for ways to deflate Linux as a competition, this couldn't be more closer to the truth - Hopefully, anyone who views the code, is not on the "Development Team" for any Linux Distro - It "could" throw Linux into one heck of a lawsuit and court costs...
Just my thoughts,
Cuddles
This "I'm too small to be noticed" idea of protection is exactly what folks getting sued by the RIAA used to think.
If you are a programmer, do not look at or download the code. You can't use it, and it may severely impact your freedom to program in the future (on both windows and linux).
M$ has lots of money and many many lawyers on staff. If you think they will not protect their IP aggressively then you are utterly incorrect. It will only be a matter of time before arrests or lawsuits are made, I will bet you anything on that. I am sure M$ wants to catch a linux programmer with the code so they can cast doubts about linux's "clean" nature and push more of their FUD into the press.
Am I curious about the code? YES. Do I want to be able to write any code I want without interference from M$? YES. Will I download the code? NO. Should you? Not if you ever plan to release code that may somehow resemble something that is done on windows. If they find it on your PC you are done as a programmer. Not only will they prevent you from releasing code, but try getting a job after being nailed by M$.
Pardon me for one, being nieve [sp], and two, for being in a small hick-town in the frozen part of the USA, but, what exactly did M$ leak? Windows code, IE code? If at all possible, what version, the latest, or a few revs back????
Cuddles
A few million lines of NT4 and windows 2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuddles
I read about 90% of NT and 15% of Win2K.
About the other posts. OK sorry! :shock: I was only meaning it as a joke! It just seemed kind of an overkill on "whooo, look out for that code, don't even look at it or you will go blind! Microsoft knows that you looked and will beat down your door and give you a wedgie!"
So if you were upset with me, Sorry. I was just trying to make it light in here, but it didn't work.
At least I am not upset :-) But I think you are missing a big part of the point. The worst thing about this mess is that M$ can use it to destroy some open-source project you might participate in. It is even possible they leaked it on purpose (I'm not saying that they did) hoping that part of it would end up in some competing oss project that they then could shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunkah
All I can say is, if one of my Linux programs gives me the blue screen of death, I'm going to be very suspicious. :wink:
I did get that. Forget I said anything. I was just making a subtle joke. I didn't mean to get into anything, this big.
.......think again, M$ knows it is doomed & cannot fight Linux, the natural evolution of Linux is just starting to take hold & very soon Linux will take over!
But M$'s only way of combating linux is to take out as many software patents as possible before the Bush Corporation get's put in handcuffs later this year for Major corruption & fraud in colluding with big business.
M$ just won one patent on XML, they've filed for many many more already & are just waiting for their bribes to public officials to pay off.
R.
Now, now those are not bribes those are "campaign contributions" and yes they served them well in the last election cycle they made the whole DOJ case seem to vanish from the face of the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardomardi
I'm confused about one thing. Microsoft coders are able to see Linux code any day of the week right? So who's to say that Linux code isn't winding up in Microsoft to some (perhaps small) extent. Therefore, couldn't they find code in Linux that seems to copy Windows when really it's the other way around? :?:
While that is possible I wouldn't bet on it myself. Mainly because the BSD license (used by FreeBSD for instance) gives them the right to copy stuff from other places (like FreeBSD) whenever they don't feel like implementing something themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by champagnemojo
They already have done that and it is not to some small extent either their entire internet functionality is based on BSD code for the TCP/IP stack (eg. your networking) and Mosaic (Internet Explorer) so you may as well say the whole operating system design of inter-connectivity they have at the moment exists because of if not Open Source at least Shared Source code that they have taken and used in a not very productive way unless you count the jobs created by cleaning up their mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by champagnemojo
Hi, everyone
I realize I have a minimal postcount, and newbies to a forum usually don't post in such a sticky thread, but I feel a need to.
I am a musician (thusly my screen name). I understand copyright laws and why they are there, and what they are supposed to do. I agree with the limits imposed by these laws.
It seems to me that code is no different than poetry. It is a medium in words. Programming or wooing your spouse-to-be, or talking about WWII, is irrelevant. One controls a process in a computer, the other controls a process in the heart, and another a process in the memory.
I understand the open-source community's philosophy, and have no objection to that route, either. It seems to be an unending book. You can copy and modify it and re-relase it, but only if you give credit to where you got your original copy from, and who wrote it, in a very compact nutshell.
But, to chastise those who even look at the code so harshly is akin to saying "if you may ever write music in the future, don't listen to the radio.....it might taint your creative vision into piracy". To download it, yes, that is wrong. But, if your buddy did, and shows you....well, I don't think it poisons a thing.
Studying, on the other hand, is altogether different. If you are learning to write code by studying MS' code, then you will be poisoned and tainted, and soiled, and deflowered, and whatever else you want to call it. Then, you stand a good chance at killing any project you contribute to. But I have real problems with this scenario:
(1) With so much open source code available, why would anyone try to copy a proprietery style?
(2) Why would anyone want to copy a flawed OS in any part? Why, when Linux is already so good? What benefit would come of it?
Like I said, to risk being redundant, it is one thing to listen to "Ride The Lightning", and altogether different to copy James Hetfield's guitar's every nuance throughout the song on your own guitar.
That's my opinion on this volitile subject.
At the risk of beating a dead horse till there is nothing but bones, it is clear you do not really know what you are talking about. There are terms and conditions under which you can view proprietary code and you have to abide by them, anyone writing code for a living or hobby that views such code, has it in their possession or access too it without supervision can open any project that they work for up to charges of copyright infringement and therefore are useless for the purpose of working on said project. And being a musician you should know the difference between listening to the radio and copying someones work.Quote:
Originally Posted by fourtrackmind
Laziness, trying to impress people and all the others reasons for some people being scumbags.Quote:
(1) With so much open source code available, why would anyone try to copy a proprietery style?
2a & b) See answer to 1. 2c)None except for the lawyers when a lawsuit is filed once the owner of the code in question finds out.Quote:
(2) Why would anyone want to copy a flawed OS in any part? Why, when Linux is already so good? What benefit would come of it?
That has nothing to do with the subject you can copy the style of the playing, you just cannot copy the song itself. At least this is the case if the John Fogarty decision is to be followed when the record company tried to sue him for sounding too much like CCR and lost.Quote:
Like I said, to risk being redundant, it is one thing to listen to "Ride The Lightning", and altogether different to copy James Hetfield's guitar's every nuance throughout the song on your own guitar.
That's my opinion on this volitile subject.
Stephen,
I thought the whole gist of this thread (unless I was mistaken) was that to look at MS' code would tarnish your ability to write unique code, and thusly the Metallica reference.
I didn't see that anyone made reference to copying actual code, just copying enough to get into trouble. Thusly again, the Metallica reference, and saying that just listening to it is not the same as copying the nuances, and style.
The general theme of this thread is that by seeing this code alone is enough to influence how one programs. I think it is rubbish, and I said so.
Sorry if I seem rude. You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying altogether..... :cry:
I have another curiosity for you guys. It would seem like a logical conclusion that any former programmer for Microsoft would essentially be dead to the linux community, since he's seen their code. On the other hand he did have legitimate access...and how do project leaders keep such people out? Is there a background-check kind of thing on large projects, or is it just a "take people for their word" kind of thing? Sorry for all of the questions...I teach at a business school and I find this topic fascinating.
That is not it at all and is the point I am trying to make here you never have had to even have looked at the code for there to be problems just having access to the code in any way, shape or form is enough. It can never be proven that you did not look at it therefore just the possibility of your ideas can have come from it are enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by fourtrackmind
There is still the difference between copying the style of Metallica and the actual song claiming it as your own the first is legal the second is not. A band can sound just as much like another as they want they just cannot take the other bands songs and start performing them as their own although if they want to be a cover band and perform as a Metallica look alike using their songs that is legal too it just has to be clearly stated that you are not seeing Metallica and if they sell recordings of the performances they need permission and have to pay royalties to do so.Quote:
Thusly again, the Metallica reference, and saying that just listening to it is not the same as copying the nuances, and style.
You do not seem to be rude, you just do not understand the dangers of proprietary code and what the restrictions on you can be depending on the license terms and conditions of the copyright holder(s).Quote:
The general theme of this thread is that by seeing this code alone is enough to influence how one programs. I think it is rubbish, and I said so.
Sorry if I seem rude. You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying altogether..... :cry:
I would say you are essentially correct dead in the water and floating belly up for Linux developement and having had the legitimate access would not matter there would be terms and conditions on what any programmer could do when he signed his contract of employment while still at MS and most likely a number of years after leaving there as well, aside from the fact just who would ever take that risk letting a former MS employee get involved so that they can be sued for the effort. I would say this whole question(s) is a good one for debian-legal@lists.debian.org (I think I have the address right) they know far more about this than I. I know the developers for Debian have to be sponsored by another developer and they have to met in person so the new developer can have his GPG key signed to be able to upload to the servers but that is about all I know on that probably a question for debian-devel@list.debian.org .Quote:
Originally Posted by champagnemojo
Stephen,
Then, because it is out there alone is why the code is dangerous, because someone might have seen it. I still say it is rubbish.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser, at least in the USA, at least it used to be.
Therefore, because I heard the radio, some lawyer of some record company could come after me because I might have been influenced to write something simmilar to their band's stuff, eh?
You say I don't understand.....I do. I also say you are making too much of this, and that fear is what MS wants more than anything. That's why I posted to begin with. They NEED you to be afraid of them...even if only afraid of looking at their code.
The fear in Linux, the fear of MS taking away their utopia is what will undo it. Don't be afraid of Billy's money.
I respect your position, and see it will not change. Nor will mine. I respectfully bow out of this debate.
Thanks Stephen, I'll check into those mailing lists.
Fourtrackmind, you're not necessarily wrong, just too idealistic. The reality is that money talks and Microsoft has money to spare. Even if MS eventually lost, I would imagine they could probably keep it in the courts for quite some time and the trial costs could be rather debilitating.
It is not the fact that the code is out there as it is if you have been somewhere in the physical presence of the code without restriction that can be the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by fourtrackmind
Again not the same thing you can copy a bands style not their work and if you write your own stuff in their style it yours not theirs nobody can claim a style of music how the hell would record companies ever survive if they did not have all the clone acts to push. With those stupid laws like the DMCA that have been passed a website can be taken down in a instant with a DMCA notification to your ISP just by claiming that you have infringed no proof needed the printer companies tried to use it to stop refills more of that happens all the time software patents are the same thing if not worse.Quote:
The burden of proof lies with the accuser, at least in the USA, at least it used to be.
Therefore, because I heard the radio, some lawyer of some record company could come after me because I might have been influenced to write something simmilar to their band's stuff, eh?
I am not now nor have I ever been afraid of MS or it's money and am not really dreaming of a utopia I just want something that works without getting screwed over for it. I have been using KDE since pre 1.0 back in the day when the GNU purist were screaming and still are for that matter oh Trolltech that evil money making company. I worked many moons ago developing database software when DOS was king, Novell ruled the networking roost and dBase was the software of choice for doing that work so I know a little bit about the pitfalls involved at least as far as the hoops I had to jump through to get the job done. Depending on the work we were doing you could not do work for a company in a similar field because you already knew the business methods and practices of the first so you may pass on confidential information even inadvertently. Then there are the do I own the code does the business being it is being written for own it or is it only parts if so which parts and what can be done with it, where it is going to be kept it, it just turns damn complicated real quick.Quote:
You say I don't understand.....I do. I also say you are making too much of this, and that fear is what MS wants more than anything. That's why I posted to begin with. They NEED you to be afraid of them...even if only afraid of looking at their code.
The fear in Linux, the fear of MS taking away their utopia is what will undo it. Don't be afraid of Billy's money.
I respect your position, and see it will not change. Nor will mine.
As will I this is not really the place for political/philosophical discussions anyway.Quote:
I respectfully bow out of this debate.
FourTrackMind,
I don't think this was a "debate", nor do I think you two were in the "arguement", on this subject. What I think is that "programmers" know things "you do", and things "you don't do", and that a musician knows the "do's and don'ts" - each from their own world - so to speak...
Let me see if I can explain a "programmers" view-point, in a "musicians" view-point...
(1) Since the "landmark" ruleing from Microsoft vs Apple - judgement was for Microsoft, on the grounds that you can not copyright a "look and feel" kind of thing - Microsoft was accused of, in which they DID, steal the idea of Mac OS, in their own Windows OS. Unfortunately, as it was, Apple had "stollen" the idea of the Mac OS from Xerox, but that is a different story... Thus, no one can "protect" a "look and feel", it is currently done at the "code" level, as far as I know. That means, if you want to "protect" a program, or a OS, you send in "reams" of code to have it copyrighted. As far as I know, any part of that code is NOW protected.
(2) Later on, when IBM released the OS/2 operating system, to avoid being hit with a lawsuit from Microsoft, IBM chose to use a "shredder" instead of a "trashcan", just in case - or so I heard.
(3) If you ever look at the "legal notice" that is used to seal a cdrom in, or the check box when you fire up a program that you need to "Accept" these terms. If you read through, most of them, it will state that the copyright includes "not reverse engineering" the software. This "term" is used to protect the code. Someone can get an editor, look at the actual binary, or hex, or octal, code, change a little of it, and then - illegally - re-release a new product.
Now, the explaination in a musicians terminology:
The way the software world works, and why such a big paranoia on this subject/thread, is, if you as a musician, HIRE someone to play background to your song, and it is released... You could have a lawsuit on your hands from any band, or performer, the person you hired to play background for you, was ever in. Even if the person you hired has nothing to do with colaboration, or any input in your song as far as its writting, sound, tempo, etc... Just the mere fact that they worked on someone elses music, has "tainted" your music, and thus, your music "could" be "based" on these other peoples music - even if it doesn't sound like it, look like it, or even play like it.
Take into another issue: Lawsuits. If your "record" company was just a small, backroom type, production company, of maybe $5,000 annual, and the other "record" company that is going to go up against you has, say, millions, could you stay in court, with all the fees, etc... as long as the other one could? Sooner or later, the money would run out, whereas, the other company could go on, pretty much for a long, long time - they could drag the case out for years - and during that time, you would not be allowed to sell your product, and quite possibly, your record company may get additional lawsuits on the grounds that "if you did it with this artist, you might have ALSO done it with any artist that is on your label".
The software world is more in its infantcy compared to the music industry - and then think about the music world just starting to see the "power" of downloading songs, and personal computer duplicating. The software world is "trying" to protect what it creates, but has a lot fewer ways of being able to do that, considering reverse engineering, and that, just maybe, a couple of "notes" get into the same pattern as someone elses, and a lawsuit begins thinking that the "whole" package must have been copied/duplicated.
I hope this helps, if not, it "ain't" my first useless post :D
Cuddles
I just want to see the comments that were included, can someone who looked at it (and might still have the code) give me a copy or link to the comments. I heard that the chick from Wired was laffing her buttox off. I want to leave coding open as an option in my life, but don't want M$ on my butt. If you have it can you give it...
There were two stories on slashdot about the leaked code; you'll find most of the funny stuff in the comments! As I said, I did a wipe -r ./mssource but well, It's still available on edonkey, gnutella, kazaa, freenet etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by zentu
Do not use any swear words in your sorce or MS may give you a nice law suite
i did not have sex with that women
worked (sort of ) for bill clinton
the 98se code would have been more fun for a play toy , not that i'm a coder.
but i did not look at the code or down load it ( 56k connection) though i must admit it is pretty phunny,after all there are some rumors that link bill and code theft that have been around for years ( so i hear)
though i am not realy writing this post and if i was it would only be my personal impression and in noway would it be either a direct acusation or an admitance of any liability whatsoever in fact i am not even a forum member and i do not have any access to the web or computers!
btw what is a p.c.???????? & who is this bill fellow that it is rumored that people reffer to in veiled and obscured ways?
this is a fictional work and any similarity to people alive or dead is compleatlycoincidental and i didnt do it anyways.