Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Leaked M$ code

  1. #21
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by champagnemojo
    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?
    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.

  2. #22
    Junior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    WNY, USA
    Posts
    19
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by fourtrackmind
    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.
    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.
    (1) With so much open source code available, why would anyone try to copy a proprietery style?
    Laziness, trying to impress people and all the others reasons for some people being scumbags.
    (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?
    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.
    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.
    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.

  4. #24
    Junior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    WNY, USA
    Posts
    19
    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.....

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    382
    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.

  6. #26
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by fourtrackmind
    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.
    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.

    Thusly again, the Metallica reference, and saying that just listening to it is not the same as copying the nuances, and style.
    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.

    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.....
    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).

  7. #27
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by champagnemojo
    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.
    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 .

  8. #28
    Junior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    WNY, USA
    Posts
    19
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    382
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member registered user
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by fourtrackmind
    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.
    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.

    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?
    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.

    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 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.

    I respectfully bow out of this debate.
    As will I this is not really the place for political/philosophical discussions anyway.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. testing php code
    By maxIT in forum General Support
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-16-2005, 08:13 PM
  2. Me Code... please break...
    By chris-harry in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 09:52 AM
  3. Source Code?
    By ShadowAce in forum General Support
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2005, 07:35 PM
  4. Product Key Code - I need a new one...
    By rrfish72 in forum MS Windows & New to Linux
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2004, 09:57 AM
  5. error code pls help
    By ghostdancer in forum General Support
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2004, 09:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •