Topic: Microsoft offering Windows source code

[E_Look]

... Microsoft Windows: 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition

Well, that 0.5 bit of cleverness deserves one full point!

[prometheus]

... Microsoft Windows: 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition

Well, that 0.5 bit of cleverness deserves one full point!

I wish it was my cleverness, but your looking at a 0.25 bit of plagerism... 

[Just plain old Punisher]

Spoken like a man who hasn't purchased a solid gold car with money he embezzeled from his companies old widows and orphans fund.

... spoken like a man who has watched others purchase solid gold cars with money they embezzled from their companies old widows and orphans fund.

Naw, I'll just charge the government for some of those $500.00 toilet seats.

[Nemesis]

So, if he's willing to benefit from the generosity of others, ie. the OS movement, perhaps it's time, after years of earning billions through the use of OS transfer protocols, to give something back? 

The authors of that code chose to put it on a license where the only thing that they required is the copyright notice.  Nothing else.  It was their code and they chose the license.

Giving something back would have been nice but nice isn't required by the BSD license.  Which of course is why Microsoft likes the BSD license and hates the (as MS calls it viral) GPL.

Incidentally, I don't recall seeing any requester pop up to tell me that I was using a BSD/Unix protocol the last time I used Outlook Express... Perhaps it's hidden away insome small print somewhere?

I think that you have to look at the binary with a hex editor but people have checked and the copyright notice was retained.  So long as the rules were followed and the rightful copyright holders are satisfied then I don't see any reason to complain.

And yes,there is actual evidence...  The guy has been embroiled in more law suits than I've had hot dinners...

Any of those suits for theft of Apple and/or Unix code?  I don't recall any.  Feel free to show me a link to one.  The Microsoft Lawsuits link that I provided would love to add such evidence if you can show it to me.

Any big company is going to have trouble with lawsuits.  Remember the recent Wendy's "finger" lawsuit?  The one where it turned out to be a frame up?  It does happen even to good companies.

I mean, Jesus Christ, we might not have it 100% right in Europe, but at least over here there is a debate about how much bullying massive corporations should be allowed to get away with, and I can assure you, if Microsoft was based in London, Gates would have had his neck reeled in a long time ago...  The practices of the Freemarket (and I hate that name because "free" implies some kind of benefit to the consumer and some kind of ethical dimension, neither of which exist) must have some ethical restrictions on them, and Gates has gotten away with murder over the last twenty years...

You mean England would have done something to stop William Gates III KBE?  They have found Microsoft guilty of false advertising (and complaints are currently being made on that score again) but I don't recall England actually doing something to limit him beyond saying "stop and please don't do it again".

The EU is currently trying to take quite a tough stand on things.  Hopefully they won't let him stall long enough to make any punishments irrelevant.  Also I hope  that the EU stands fast on software patents and the U.S. gets smart and backs off on them, but software patents are another issue. 

Using OS products while trying to shut down every single competitor?  I detest double standards, I always have, that is the failing in humans that pisses me off more than anything else, and Gates is guilty of some bloody big ones...

So long as they don't violate the license of the Open Source products I have no problem with them using them.  It is very much in keeping with the Open Source spirit to share even with those only want to use and not give back.  Sort of shows who is really better doesn't it?  Microsoft takes and doesn't return.  Apple does some returning (even when the return isn't required).  RedHat not only returns but has made (and bought) original creations and given them as well. 

I think that over the long run Microsoft will fall because when they make an enemy it is for keeps and they aren't making new friends.  Sooner or later they will have too many enemies to stand alone against and no one to stand with them.  They can still buy new friends but such friends only last so long as the money keeps coming and that will fail them in time.

If Massachusetts succeeds with ODF that will open the flood gates and Microsoft will have begun to lose one of the twin pillars on which it is built.

But they could still turn it around if they dumped the current board and the new board decided to work with some ethics and legality.  I hope they do.  A lot of people will be hurt if/when Microsoft falls.  Unless Microsoft changes more will be hurt if they don't fall.  Fall or change are the only two futures I see for Microsoft and fall is so much more likely.

[prometheus]

So, if he's willing to benefit from the generosity of others, ie. the OS movement, perhaps it's time, after years of earning billions through the use of OS transfer protocols, to give something back? 

The authors of that code chose to put it on a license where the only thing that they required is the copyright notice.  Nothing else.  It was their code and they chose the license.

Giving something back would have been nice but nice isn't required by the BSD license.  Which of course is why Microsoft likes the BSD license and hates the (as MS calls it viral) GPL.

Incidentally, I don't recall seeing any requester pop up to tell me that I was using a BSD/Unix protocol the last time I used Outlook Express... Perhaps it's hidden away insome small print somewhere?

I think that you have to look at the binary with a hex editor but people have checked and the copyright notice was retained.  So long as the rules were followed and the rightful copyright holders are satisfied then I don't see any reason to complain.

And yes,there is actual evidence...  The guy has been embroiled in more law suits than I've had hot dinners...

Any of those suits for theft of Apple and/or Unix code?  I don't recall any.  Feel free to show me a link to one.  The Microsoft Lawsuits link that I provided would love to add such evidence if you can show it to me.

Any big company is going to have trouble with lawsuits.  Remember the recent Wendy's "finger" lawsuit?  The one where it turned out to be a frame up?  It does happen even to good companies.

I mean, Jesus Christ, we might not have it 100% right in Europe, but at least over here there is a debate about how much bullying massive corporations should be allowed to get away with, and I can assure you, if Microsoft was based in London, Gates would have had his neck reeled in a long time ago...  The practices of the Freemarket (and I hate that name because "free" implies some kind of benefit to the consumer and some kind of ethical dimension, neither of which exist) must have some ethical restrictions on them, and Gates has gotten away with murder over the last twenty years...

You mean England would have done something to stop William Gates III KBE?  They have found Microsoft guilty of false advertising (and complaints are currently being made on that score again) but I don't recall England actually doing something to limit him beyond saying "stop and please don't do it again".

The EU is currently trying to take quite a tough stand on things.  Hopefully they won't let him stall long enough to make any punishments irrelevant.  Also I hope  that the EU stands fast on software patents and the U.S. gets smart and backs off on them, but software patents are another issue. 

Using OS products while trying to shut down every single competitor?  I detest double standards, I always have, that is the failing in humans that pisses me off more than anything else, and Gates is guilty of some bloody big ones...

So long as they don't violate the license of the Open Source products I have no problem with them using them.  It is very much in keeping with the Open Source spirit to share even with those only want to use and not give back.  Sort of shows who is really better doesn't it?  Microsoft takes and doesn't return.  Apple does some returning (even when the return isn't required).  RedHat not only returns but has made (and bought) original creations and given them as well. 

I think that over the long run Microsoft will fall because when they make an enemy it is for keeps and they aren't making new friends.  Sooner or later they will have too many enemies to stand alone against and no one to stand with them.  They can still buy new friends but such friends only last so long as the money keeps coming and that will fail them in time.

If Massachusetts succeeds with ODF that will open the flood gates and Microsoft will have begun to lose one of the twin pillars on which it is built.

But they could still turn it around if they dumped the current board and the new board decided to work with some ethics and legality.  I hope they do.  A lot of people will be hurt if/when Microsoft falls.  Unless Microsoft changes more will be hurt if they don't fall.  Fall or change are the only two futures I see for Microsoft and fall is so much more likely.

Then feel free to continue your love affair with a gargantuan sloth that has held the computing industry back years...  No skin off my nose...

[prometheus]

It is very much in keeping with the Open Source spirit to share even with those only want to use and not give back.

I don't recall Stallman or Torvald mentioning earning Bill Gates a living in any of their mission statements...  It is in the spirit of the OS movement for any code that Microsoft have modified or utilized that was open source to be spread without restriction...  There is no tennet in the OS movement to say that anyone can appropriate OS code, write it into a Closed Source Operating System and pass it off as their own...

There is no doubt that what made PC sales Mushroom in the late nineties was the Internet, and none of it's protocols were written by Bill Gates...  Shame Shame Shame!

[prometheus]

I think that you have to look at the binary with a hex editor but people have checked and the copyright notice was retained.  So long as the rules were followed and the rightful copyright holders are satisfied then I don't see any reason to complain.

Really?  Well maybe you should visit an optician in that case... A copyright notice that requires a binary hex editor is all very well for the 0.01% of the population who might actually ever use one of the things to look at Outlook Express Code, but what about the other 5.99 * 10 to the 9th of us who just blindly assume that the code was written by microsoft? 

I can see a pretty big problem with that, and if I had written the code I'd make sure Gates was on the wrong end of a high profile law suit until I read my name when the TCP/IP protocol was used.  It is abundantly obvious that Gates has no intention of crediting the copyright holders in any meaningful way...

[Nemesis]

Then feel free to continue your love affair with a gargantuan sloth that has held the computing industry back years...  No skin off my nose...

You clearly have not been reading my postings from the beginning.  I am not pro Microsoft and am currently moving more and more towards Linux because of Microsofts behaviour.  However I would defend Satan himself (if he existed) from false accusations.  Microsoft is guilty of enough that no one needs to falsify things.

I still await links to evidence of their theft of Apple and Unix code.

[Nemesis]

Really?  Well maybe you should visit an optician in that case... A copyright notice that requires a binary hex editor is all very well for the 0.01% of the population who might actually ever use one of the things to look at Outlook Express Code, but what about the other 5.99 * 10 to the 9th of us who just blindly assume that the code was written by microsoft? 

I can see a pretty big problem with that, and if I had written the code I'd make sure Gates was on the wrong end of a high profile law suit until I read my name when the TCP/IP protocol was used.  It is abundantly obvious that Gates has no intention of crediting the copyright holders in any meaningful way...

He only has to follow the rules that the copyright holders say and he has.  You can argue that he should do more and I wouldn't say much but he is not in any way required to.  The copyright holders know and do not object that is enough for me.

[prometheus]

Then feel free to continue your love affair with a gargantuan sloth that has held the computing industry back years...  No skin off my nose...

I still await links to evidence of their theft of Apple and Unix code.

I can't remember where I heard the Apple assertions, it was years ago... If you're that desperate, I suggest you consult Google.  That is what Search Engines are for...

As for the Unix issue, copyright messages that have to be viewed with a binary editor are not the spirit of Open Source, and if you've ever so much a looked at the GNU and GPL, you know that as well as I do...  I view passing OS code off as your own as theft, if you do not, then I'll agree to disagree with you...

[prometheus]

He only has to follow the rules that the copyright holders say and he has.  You can argue that he should do more and I wouldn't say much but he is not in any way required to.  The copyright holders know and do not object that is enough for me.

Perhaps your definition of theft allows a little more leeway than mine...  The obvious intent of using a legal loophole like this to hide the copyright ownership of the transfer protocol code can only be to pass it off as Microsoft's own work.  There is no other reason... That is theft by any sensible definition of the word...

[prometheus]

The copyright holders know and do not object that is enough for me.

Given when that code was written, the copyright owners have quite possibly died of old age by now...  That is not the issue...

[Nemesis]

I can't remember where I heard the Apple assertions, it was years ago... If you're that desperate, I suggest you consult Google.  That is what Search Engines are for...

So what your saying is that you can't be bothered to back your arguments up and want me to do the work for you?  Sorry thats not how debate works.

You see I have been following PCs from the beginning and believe that if there had ever been credible accusations such as that I would be aware of them.  So why should I waste my time looking for what I am sure does not exist in an effort to bolster your argument?

As for the Unix issue, copyright messages that have to be viewed with a binary editor are not the spirit of Open Source, and if you've ever so much a looked at the GNU and GPL, you know that as well as I do...  I view passing OS code off as your own as theft, if you do not, then I'll agree to disagree with you...

Now as you see I am willing to use google to back up my argument.  Offical online acknowledgement from Microsoft of using BSD code.

Link to BSD Code use acknowledgement by Microsoft

Copyright (c) 1988, 1989, 1990 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by Adam de Boor.

This software and documentation is based in part on BSD Networking Software licensed from the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley. We acknowledge the role of the Computer Systems Research Group and the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Department of the University of California, Berkeley, and the Other Contributors in its development.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

4.Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

They have followed the rules.  Maybe reluctantly but they have done so and by following the rules they gain the rights those who set the rules up grant them.

[Nemesis]

Microsoft may not even be able to charge royalties for any information provided under the EU ruling.  To charge royalties they would have to prove that the protocol was "innovative".  Innovation is something that historically they talk about but they don't actually do.

Link to full article

A letter by Professor Neil Barrett, the Commission’s technical adviser in the case, states that there is nothing “innovative” about the 12,000 pages of information drawn up by Microsoft so far. Because the group is only allowed to charge rival companies for licensing information if it is “innovative”, this assessment would allow Brussels to prevent Microsoft from charging any fees at all.

the information made available by Microsoft so far is “totally useless” and falls far short of the regulator’s expectations.

[prometheus]

I can't remember where I heard the Apple assertions, it was years ago... If you're that desperate, I suggest you consult Google.  That is what Search Engines are for...

So what your saying is that you can't be bothered to back your arguments up and want me to do the work for you?  Sorry thats not how debate works.

You see I have been following PCs from the beginning and believe that if there had ever been credible accusations such as that I would be aware of them.  So why should I waste my time looking for what I am sure does not exist in an effort to bolster your argument?

As for the Unix issue, copyright messages that have to be viewed with a binary editor are not the spirit of Open Source, and if you've ever so much a looked at the GNU and GPL, you know that as well as I do...  I view passing OS code off as your own as theft, if you do not, then I'll agree to disagree with you...

Now as you see I am willing to use google to back up my argument.  Offical online acknowledgement from Microsoft of using BSD code.

Link to BSD Code use acknowledgement by Microsoft

Copyright (c) 1988, 1989, 1990 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by Adam de Boor.

This software and documentation is based in part on BSD Networking Software licensed from the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley. We acknowledge the role of the Computer Systems Research Group and the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Department of the University of California, Berkeley, and the Other Contributors in its development.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

4.Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

They have followed the rules.  Maybe reluctantly but they have done so and by following the rules they gain the rights those who set the rules up grant them.

So, if I was to use your intellectual property and pass it off as my own with a copy right notice that nobody will ever see, you wouldn't be worried about it?

I'll keep that in mind if I ever happen to spot any of your work that is marketable in Scotland...

You obviously condone this kind of practice, I consider it legal theft.  I am not arguing about whether Microsoft broke the law, I am fully aware that there are two rules of law in the Western World, one for the ultra rich and one for the rest of us, and I am well aware that the American justice system has even exonnerated paedophiles (Jackson) and murderers (Simpson) on the grounds that they are fabulously wealthy, but that does not alter the fact that what microsoft have done in appropriating billions of dollars on the back of code they did not create by using it in a spirit it was not meant to be used in is sickening, depressing and demeaning...  So, if what they have done is alright by you, the we'll just have to agree to disagree...

On the other point, it's not a question of not being bothered backing up arguements, I am far to busy at the moment to spend hours on google chasing up an allegation I heard on a television program ten years ago.  I was debating with you on breaks from work, and I can't even remember the names of the individuals involved.  When I said Apple Code I wasn't exactly referring to OS 10, I was talking about stuff from the botched together binary disaster areas that people were building in the seventies...

[prometheus]

So what your saying is that you can't be bothered to back your arguments up and want me to do the work for you?  Sorry thats not how debate works.

You see I have been following PCs from the beginning and believe that if there had ever been credible accusations such as that I would be aware of them.  So why should I waste my time looking for what I am sure does not exist in an effort to bolster your argument?

In the interests of keeping the peace, I withdraw my allegations about Apple.  I don't have time to look into this at the moment, I'm working on several prjects that demand a lot of my attention...   Probably what has happened is that I have picked up on something Gates has done that again was legal under US law, but which Apple strenuously objected too...

[Nemesis]

So, if I was to use your intellectual property and pass it off as my own with a copy right notice that nobody will ever see, you wouldn't be worried about it?

I'll keep that in mind if I ever happen to spot any of your work that is marketable in Scotland...

If I publish it under a license that allows you to do that and you obey the licence?  Sure go ahead because the license already gives you my permission and you don't need anything else.

You obviously condone this kind of practice, I consider it legal theft.  I am not arguing about whether Microsoft broke the law, I am fully aware that there are two rules of law in the Western World, one for the ultra rich and one for the rest of us, and I am well aware that the American justice system has even exonnerated paedophiles (Jackson) and murderers (Simpson) on the grounds that they are fabulously wealthy, but that does not alter the fact that what microsoft have done in appropriating billions of dollars on the back of code they did not create by using it in a spirit it was not meant to be used in is sickening, depressing and demeaning...  So, if what they have done is alright by you, the we'll just have to agree to disagree...

How is it theft when the owners say here it is, use it under these rules and Microsoft adheres to the rules? 

How you can call this an example of there being a law for the rich and a law for the poor when Linux also uses BSD code under the same rules I don't know.  The same TCP/IP code was used by both.

Both used the code, both followed the rules, neither broke the law or used their vast wealth and power to steal the work of others (in this instance).

On the other point, it's not a question of not being bothered backing up arguements, I am far to busy at the moment to spend hours on google chasing up an allegation I heard on a television program ten years ago.  I was debating with you on breaks from work, and I can't even remember the names of the individuals involved.  When I said Apple Code I wasn't exactly referring to OS 10, I was talking about stuff from the botched together binary disaster areas that people were building in the seventies...

Whatever you have been smoking is bad stuff get rid of it.  Claiming that Windows is based on code stolen during the 1970s?  Your reality cheque has just bounced.

At most back then there was the Xerox Palo Alto research center windowing system, a prototype never marketed.  The PC didn't exist and the Microcomputer barely did.  Apple was king of the roost and licensed Applesoft Basic from Microsoft in 1978 (a bad deal for Microsoft actually).  Microsoft didn't even have an OS until 1980 when they produced Xenix under license from AT&T.  MS-DOS came out a year later in 1981.

There was indeed once a lawsuit between Apple and Microsoft.  It was over the appearance of Windows.  They settled and among other things Microsoft had to change the appearance of their Recycle Bin so it didn't resemble the Mac garbage can.  That involved no source code.  No theft of the actual image only the allegation that Windows looked too much like the Mac OS.

[Mr_Tricorder]

I've been away from the dynaverse forums for a few days and look what happens.  I wish I got into this one earlier.

I agree completely with everything IKV Nemesis has said.  Prometheus, give him a break, I agree with what you're saying is the spirit of open source, and I'm sure Nemesis does too.  He's not condoning the actions of Microsoft, he's simply pointing out that they are complying with the bare minimum requirements of the BSD license and, however unfair it may seem, they are not breaking the law in this manner.

Whenever you acquire a piece of software that someone else wrote, it comes with a license.  That license states what you can and cannot legally do with the software, regardless if it's fair or not.  If you don't like the license, don't use the software.  If you feel you're getting ripped off by the way someone else is using your software even though it complies with the license you attached to it, it's your own damn fault.

Is Microsoft complying with the BSD license?  Yes.
Good for them.  That's one less legal battlefront they have to worry about.

Is Microsoft going against the spirit of Open Source by taking what they want, using it in closed source, proprietary software and obscuring the proper credits from all but those who know exactly where and how to find it?  Yes.
Shame on them.  They get "bad rep" points and people may be less willing to do business with them.

What Microsoft is doing here is unethical, but not illegal.
(Keep in mind that I'm only talking about this one issue and not about the entire legal history of Microsoft)

Just so you know where I stand, I am also a Linux user (currently running SUSE 10.0) and have no love for Microsoft.  I have my system set up for dual-boot because I need to use Photoshop (I'm not nearly as good in GIMP as I am in Photoshop yet), 3ds max, and games, but if I could do all of these things in Linux, I would gladly kiss Windows goodbye.

[prometheus]

I'm not accusing them of breaking the law...  The problem for me is that certain people seem to lack the penetration to see the problem...  This is what allows the problem to persist...  All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...

There are many ways to steal while staying on the right side of the law... 

[Mr_Tricorder]

I understand what you're saying, but that's an entirely different matter altogether.  You can't fight Microsoft on a moral basis because too many people sell their morals everyday.  I agree that many of Microsoft's actions are evil, but the only ones we have the ability to combat are the illegal ones.  You will be very hard-pressed to find a company that hasn't committed something that could easily be labeled an evil act, whether or not it was legal.

You can say "Microsoft is evil" and give every reason for it all day long, but it won't do anything.  Microsoft is so big and powerful now that the only way to get it's attention is through legal means.  I agree with you about Microsoft's complete lack of ethics, but unless their doing something against the law, the only way to do anything is to change the law, and not only is that difficult, it could have ramifications beyond what you indended to accomplish, and could possibly backfire.  The best solution is to use the law as it presently is since Microsoft has breached it on countless occasions and will no doubt continue to do so until the US and the EU finally decide that they've had enough.