Download instructions for this file are available at:
http://sazerjr.tripod.com

windows_2000_source_code.zip (203.85MB)

fake@yahmoo.com wrote:
> Download instructions for this file are available at:
> http://sazerjr.tripod.com
>
> windows_2000_source_code.zip (203.85MB)

Real site or not, it's proprietary and copyrighted code. Publishing it is
illegal under US law, and under all sorts of international agreements.
Downloading it is receiving stolen goods and similarly illegal.

If you want to kick Windows' ass, do it cleanly by making better tools.
Don't do it by theft.

Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
> Real site or not, it's proprietary and copyrighted code. Publishing it is
> illegal under US law, and under all sorts of international agreements.

And it's off-topic here.

> Downloading it is receiving stolen goods...

No. Downloading it is making an unauthorized copy.

> ...and similarly illegal.

Yes.

> Don't do it by theft.

Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is not theft.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

"Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@comcast.net> writes:

]fake@yahmoo.com wrote:
]> Download instructions for this file are available at:
]> http://sazerjr.tripod.com
]>
]> windows_2000_source_code.zip (203.85MB)

]Real site or not, it's proprietary and copyrighted code. Publishing it is
]illegal under US law, and under all sorts of international agreements.
]Downloading it is receiving stolen goods and similarly illegal.

????? It is not stolen goods. It may be copyright violation.

]If you want to kick Windows' ass, do it cleanly by making better tools.
]Don't do it by theft.

It is not theft. It may be copyright violation.

"John Hasler" <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote in message
news:87n07io0ag.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org...
> Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
> > Real site or not, it's proprietary and copyrighted code. Publishing it
is
> > illegal under US law, and under all sorts of international agreements.
>
> And it's off-topic here.
>
> > Downloading it is receiving stolen goods...
>
> No. Downloading it is making an unauthorized copy.
>
> > ...and similarly illegal.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Don't do it by theft.
>
> Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is not theft.

Technically, I believe that the source code includes trade secrets and using
those can be considered theft, or at least receiving stolen goods. The
wonderful wayward of which parts of grabbing and using the code would be
considered copyright infringement, which trade secret violations, etc. are
beyond the scope of this group and beyond the comprehension of anyone sober,
including intellectual property attorneys.....

Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@comcast.net> writes:
>
> ]fake@yahmoo.com wrote:
> ]> Download instructions for this file are available at:
> ]> http://sazerjr.tripod.com
> ]>
> ]> windows_2000_source_code.zip (203.85MB)
>
> ]Real site or not, it's proprietary and copyrighted code. Publishing it is
> ]illegal under US law, and under all sorts of international agreements.
> ]Downloading it is receiving stolen goods and similarly illegal.
>
> ????? It is not stolen goods. It may be copyright violation.

Only if you publish (distribute) a work derived from it, surely! Anyone
may read it without infringing copyright, as I understand copyright -
i.e. the publisher is liable, not the reader.

> It is not theft. It may be copyright violation.

One may find it hard to argue that subsequent code one writes is not
tainted by knowledge of the windows code, if the two share similar
objectives. But the windows code also contains verbatim code drop-ins
from common compression schemes (with attributions and licenses that are
pretty open). One can clearly reuse those no matter where one got them
from, even the windows codebase.

One of the trade secrets might be the spelling of BUGBUG.


Peter

P.T. Breuer writes:
> Only if you publish (distribute) a work derived from it, surely! Anyone
> may read it without infringing copyright, as I understand copyright -
> i.e. the publisher is liable, not the reader.

The copier is liable. Downloading is copying. You could legally read a
copy downloaded and printed out by someone else, if you did not conspire
with him to make the copy.

> One may find it hard to argue that subsequent code one writes is not
> tainted by knowledge of the windows code, if the two share similar
> objectives.

Microsoft would still have to prove copying. Copyright applies to
expression, not ideas.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> P.T. Breuer writes:
> > Only if you publish (distribute) a work derived from it, surely! Anyone
> > may read it without infringing copyright, as I understand copyright -
> > i.e. the publisher is liable, not the reader.
>
> The copier is liable. Downloading is copying.

Hmmm. Reading is copying - I have to engrave the pattern on my retina,
and if you also check the visual cortex you will find an inverted image
of what I read there.

> You could legally read a
> copy downloaded and printed out by someone else,

What if I only read it a page at a time over a web interface, and
do not retain a copy of earlier pages as I move from one page to the
next, just as my eyes do not retain the image of what they have seen
earlier? Where is the copy? Each use that I make of the material is at
most a page in extent (at a time), and seems to me to be fair use, as I
might well want to read it, which is allowed.

And then what happens if I do not copy the material over the net, but
instead cause the server to encode it remotely a word at a time (so that
it sees only one bit at a time if necesary, perfectly doable with an xor
cipher), and send me the coded version?

> if you did not conspire with him to make the copy.


> > One may find it hard to argue that subsequent code one writes is not
> > tainted by knowledge of the windows code, if the two share similar
> > objectives.
>
> Microsoft would still have to prove copying. Copyright applies to
> expression, not ideas.

True. But they may claim IP rights.

Peter

ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es (P.T. Breuer) writes:
>Hmmm. Reading is copying - I have to engrave the pattern on my retina,
>and if you also check the visual cortex you will find an inverted image
>of what I read there.

arguments one makes on usenet... not to a judge...

-Mike

Mike Marshall <hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
> ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es (P.T. Breuer) writes:
> >Hmmm. Reading is copying - I have to engrave the pattern on my retina,
> >and if you also check the visual cortex you will find an inverted image
> >of what I read there.
>
> arguments one makes on usenet... not to a judge...

Arguments are arguments and judges judge them. I am pointing out that
the definition of copying needs clarification, since the one proposed
here is applicable also to what is stated as not being copying, i.e.
"reading". Do you have a better/more precise/more "legal" definition
for us?

I also proposed a method to avoid copying that uses the same technique
that the human brain uses to apparently escape the law when reading -
namely removing the traces of the copied material immediately after
perceiving it (and having stashed away a resume of the material in a
differnt form), so that the copy is only and unequivocably for an
allowed use (since I am allowed to read the material, just not to copy
it). I can also do it without any copying at all, even disk to memory,
or memory to memory, simply by asking the server to transmit a coded
version (a resume), and by getting the server to probe the disk instead
of copying it (is bit 1002265 a 1? No? OK. I'll store a 1 anyway since
there is also a 0 at bit 1002265 of the gideon bible).

Peter