I heard news that windows 2000 source code was leaked and have seen what proports to be a filelist.
Dont know if its genuine but for everyones sake I suggest that all people here completly ignore it (same as I will be doing)
Zitat von Jonathan Wilson jonwil@tpgi.com.au:
I heard news that windows 2000 source code was leaked and have seen what proports to be a filelist.
Dont know if its genuine but for everyones sake I suggest that all people here completly ignore it (same as I will be doing)
It looks like its the real thing this time. You advice is good but from what I hear (/.) it's allready spreading wide over 2p2 networks and I expect bits of knowledge comming from this code showing up on many places soon. What will you do if somebody posts bits of it as a answer of a question you asked?
juergen
------------------------------------------------- debitel.net Webmail
juergen.schmied@debitel.net wrote:
Zitat von Jonathan Wilson jonwil@tpgi.com.au:
I heard news that windows 2000 source code was leaked and have seen what proports to be a filelist.
Dont know if its genuine but for everyones sake I suggest that all people here completly ignore it (same as I will be doing)
It looks like its the real thing this time.
Maybe it wasn't a leak but a ploy by Micrsoft. Since there shared source was a flop, and SCO is about to roll over.. This coul'd be a scam up there sleves...
Tom
You advice is good but from what I hear (/.) it's allready spreading wide over 2p2 networks and I expect bits of knowledge comming from this code showing up on many places soon. What will you do if somebody posts bits of it as a answer of a question you asked?
juergen
Lo juergen.schmied@debitel.net,
On 13-02-04 (Fri) 10:49 +0100 juergen.schmied@debitel.net wrote:
| What will you do if somebody posts bits of it as a answer of a | question you asked?
Look up his name using google? :-)
Bye.
juergen.schmied@debitel.net wrote:
Zitat von Jonathan Wilson jonwil@tpgi.com.au:
I heard news that windows 2000 source code was leaked and have seen what proports to be a filelist.
Dont know if its genuine but for everyones sake I suggest that all people here completly ignore it (same as I will be doing)
It looks like its the real thing this time. You advice is good but from what I hear (/.) it's allready spreading wide over 2p2 networks and I expect bits of knowledge comming from this code showing up on many places soon. What will you do if somebody posts bits of it as a answer of a question you asked?
juergen
Use common sense.
IANAL The intelectual property law governing this case is the trade secret law. It says that the information is illegal to use if the recipient knows, or should have known, that it originated with illegally distributed trade secret.
If someone answers a question on this list, you use common sense to figure out. If the answer is something along the lines of "MS uses a variable named hSoAndSo to pass the handle from InternalGetSoAndSo to UndocumentedSomethingOrOther", you use your common sense and ask where that info comes from before you put it in. If the information seems like something someone reasonably versed in the internals of Windows would know without breaking confidentiality contracts, go ahead and use it.
The way I understand it, if everyone on this list avoid doing things we all know are not proper, Wine will be ok.
Shachar
On 2004-02-13, at 18.02, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
juergen.schmied@debitel.net wrote:
Use common sense.
IANAL The intelectual property law governing this case is the trade secret law. It says that the information is illegal to use if the recipient knows, or should have known, that it originated with illegally distributed trade secret.
Well, if you read through the code, to understand it, but you not even try to imitate or copy it. Just write brand new code, that does the same thing but in a slightly other way?
If someone answers a question on this list, you use common sense to figure out. If the answer is something along the lines of "MS uses a variable named hSoAndSo to pass the handle from InternalGetSoAndSo to UndocumentedSomethingOrOther", you use your common sense and ask where that info comes from before you put it in. If the information seems like something someone reasonably versed in the internals of Windows would know without breaking confidentiality contracts, go ahead and use it.
The way I understand it, if everyone on this list avoid doing things we all know are not proper, Wine will be ok.
Shachar
Viktor Nilsson wrote:
On 2004-02-13, at 18.02, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
juergen.schmied@debitel.net wrote:
Use common sense.
IANAL The intelectual property law governing this case is the trade secret law. It says that the information is illegal to use if the recipient knows, or should have known, that it originated with illegally distributed trade secret.
Well, if you read through the code, to understand it, but you not even try to imitate or copy it. Just write brand new code, that does the same thing but in a slightly other way?
NO!!!!
What you are saying is applicable to copyright law. I.e. - if you reverse engineer the code (say, by disassembling it). If that's what you did on LEGALLY OBTAINED CODE, then you are probably ok. The reverse engineering itself needs to be legal where you do it, but that is still possible. For example, in Israel, as far as I have found out, it is still legal to rev-eng the code.
This original MS source code, on the other hand, is covered by trade secret laws, which are far stricter. Putting it bluntly - if you touch it knowing where it came from, or even unknowingly but ignoring common sense warnings that this is an illegally leaked version, you can probably not work on Wine again. The thing that is protected is not the expression (the code itself), as with copyright, but the ideas, which are deemed secret unless uncovered LAWFULLY.
Please, guys. Let's take this issue seriously.
Shachar
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:32:05 +0200, you wrote:
What you are saying is applicable to copyright law. I.e. - if you reverse engineer the code (say, by disassembling it). If that's what you did on LEGALLY OBTAINED CODE, then you are probably ok. The reverse engineering itself needs to be legal where you do it, but that is still possible. For example, in Israel, as far as I have found out, it is still legal to rev-eng the code.
This original MS source code, on the other hand, is covered by trade secret laws, which are far stricter. Putting it bluntly - if you touch it knowing where it came from, or even unknowingly but ignoring common sense warnings that this is an illegally leaked version, you can probably not work on Wine again. The thing that is protected is not the expression (the code itself), as with copyright, but the ideas, which are deemed secret unless uncovered LAWFULLY.
Concerning the trade secret law vs copyright law, there is at least one Professor of Law who is disagreeing with you. This is (by US trade secret law) not a trade secret anymore: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040213181852642
The copyright issue is tricky enough though.
Rein.
Rein Klazes wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:32:05 +0200, you wrote:
What you are saying is applicable to copyright law. I.e. - if you reverse engineer the code (say, by disassembling it). If that's what you did on LEGALLY OBTAINED CODE, then you are probably ok. The reverse engineering itself needs to be legal where you do it, but that is still possible. For example, in Israel, as far as I have found out, it is still legal to rev-eng the code.
This original MS source code, on the other hand, is covered by trade secret laws, which are far stricter. Putting it bluntly - if you touch it knowing where it came from, or even unknowingly but ignoring common sense warnings that this is an illegally leaked version, you can probably not work on Wine again. The thing that is protected is not the expression (the code itself), as with copyright, but the ideas, which are deemed secret unless uncovered LAWFULLY.
Concerning the trade secret law vs copyright law, there is at least one Professor of Law who is disagreeing with you. This is (by US trade secret law) not a trade secret anymore: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040213181852642
The copyright issue is tricky enough though.
Rein.
What I suggested, and I still do, is this.
Decide that you do not touch this code. If you are presented with info, if warning bells ring, avoid it. If not, don't feel bad about it even if it turns out afterwards that the info DID originate at the stolen code.
Shachar
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:32, Rein Klazes wrote:
Concerning the trade secret law vs copyright law, there is at least one Professor of Law who is disagreeing with you. This is (by US trade secret law) not a trade secret anymore: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040213181852642
The referenced opinion coincides precisely with my view of the position under Australian law.
There's no trade secret because it's now too far out there to be a secret.
If you read a copy somebody else made, *you* don't break any law by doing so.
If you do read a copy, you need to be careful when using the knowledge not to use any of the code that is protected. Without solid knowledge of copyright law, this can be difficult.
Perhaps what is needed is "WINE guide to copyright law" that explains how far you can go?
Troy Rollo wrote:
Perhaps what is needed is "WINE guide to copyright law" that explains how far you can go?
I think you'd better stay well clear of the grey area, and keep us all out of trouble. We don't even want to start arguing about what is legal and what is not, because if it's not immediately obvious then we're going to end up in court, arguing against an opponent with money to throw at "the problem".
Don't go there.
Mike
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:02:40 +0100, Viktor Nilsson wrote:
Well, if you read through the code, to understand it, but you not even try to imitate or copy it. Just write brand new code, that does the same thing but in a slightly other way?
No, that's not possible. There is apparently a ton of case law that says you can be "tainted", even subconsciously (!) by exposure to other peoples work. Microsoft can easily argue that if you've read the code then what you produced, seeing as it does the same thing in probably the same way, is automatically a derivative work.
Guys, let's not lose any valuable wine hackers over this. We all know what the Windows code probably looks like - a lot of yucky hungarian C and C++. If you want to get a feel for it just read the output of midl. We can do just as good a job by not looking.
Mike Hearn mike@theoretic.com writes:
We all know what the Windows code probably looks like - a lot of yucky hungarian C and C++.
Name your weapons.
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 01:46:08PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Mike Hearn mike@theoretic.com writes:
We all know what the Windows code probably looks like - a lot of yucky hungarian C and C++.
Name your weapons.
Yucky hungarian notation, not yucky hungarians! :)
Please let's not post with a title like "Re: Windows 2000 source code has been leaked", and then send an empty message with a nondescript text file attachment.
Ouch!
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 04:48:19PM +0200, Sami Aario wrote:
Please let's not post with a title like "Re: Windows 2000 source code has been leaked", and then send an empty message with a nondescript text file attachment.
Please download a mailer that works. A plain text message with a PGP attachment (as indicated by its MIME type) is not "an empty message with a nondescript text file attachment".
On Friday 13 February 2004 10:27, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
I heard news that windows 2000 source code was leaked and have seen what proports to be a filelist.
Dont know if its genuine but for everyones sake I suggest that all people here completly ignore it (same as I will be doing)
This is quite worrying, the presence of this leaked code means a lot to wine. Just it's existence could lead to Microsoft "Claiming" wine code is derivative of it.
The mere "claim" of an infringement by Microsoft's army of lawyers can make major corporations quiver in their boots. I feel it's quite possible that the leak is a deliberate ploy by Microsoft to be able to "claim" that projects like wine are tainted, infringe Microsoft copyright and should be shutdown/ made illegal. This tactic would at least slow down competitive development in the marketplace.... Hmm
Mind you if the leak can be proved deliberate, then a deliberate release of such code might render the copyrights ineffective, since Microsoft was knowingly giving the code out for distribution....
Still, Watch This Space !
Bob
Robert Lunnon wrote:
The mere "claim" of an infringement by Microsoft's army of lawyers can make major corporations quiver in their boots.
That's true. Although, the fact that we have a source control system that allows us to account for where every piece of code comes from should allow us to identify an unscrupulous individual submitting copyrighted code, which is more than a lot of corporations have.
I feel it's quite possible that the leak is a deliberate ploy by Microsoft to be able to "claim" that projects like wine are tainted, infringe Microsoft copyright and should be shutdown/ made illegal. This tactic would at least slow down competitive development in the marketplace.... Hmm
Oh, come on! There is no good reason why Microsoft would release the code and plenty of bad reasons. The only open-source projects that could possibly be compatible with Windows source code are Wine, WineX and ReactOS. Since a lot functions have already been implemented to some extent it would probably be easier to work from Wine code than to adapt Windows code. Not to mention technical issues like half of Windows being C++ and code being dumped in using unimplemented functions. And even if it were found out that someone had been looking at the Windows code whilst at the same time submitting patches for Wine it would be very likely that their code would be removed within hours of it being discovered.
Mind you if the leak can be proved deliberate, then a deliberate release of such code might render the copyrights ineffective, since Microsoft was knowingly giving the code out for distribution....
Hell freezing over seems more likely.
Still, Watch This Space !
Bob
Rob
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:47, Robert Lunnon wrote:
Mind you if the leak can be proved deliberate, then a deliberate release of such code might render the copyrights ineffective, since Microsoft was knowingly giving the code out for distribution....
No. Copyright is designed to protect published works. The fact that the code itself is in the open has no implication whatsoever for the validity of Microsoft's copyrights. Software source code is commonly kept secret, but this is a protective measure additional to copyright, not part of copyright protection.
-
Alfons Hoogervorst -
Ferenc Wagner -
Jonathan Wilson -
juergen.schmied＠debitel.net -
Mike Hearn -
Mike McCormack -
Rein Klazes -
Robert Lunnon -
Robert Shearman -
Ryan Underwood -
Sami Aario -
Shachar Shemesh -
Tom -
Troy Rollo -
Viktor Nilsson