Window source code leaked

[M.Hockings]

>On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 14:02, M.Hockings wrote:
>  
>
>>James Drabb wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 09:12, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Anyway, I thought people here respected copyrights. How can the same
>>>>people that cry against ilegal use of GPL code by some corporations take
>>>>so light views on copyright when talking about Microsoft's (supposed)
>>>>code?
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I do respect others copyrights.  I was playing devils advocate.  I think
>>>people get silly about copyrights, especially MS's.  The best thing to
>>>do is ask a lawyer.
>>>
>>>Looking at the MS code is a whole different ball game then actually
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I would not be so confident that the above is true.  Say you were to 
>>obtain and view the MS source code ( in fact you may not even have 
>>looked at it but simply possess it you cannot prove that you have not 
>>examined at all of it).  Say that you then wrote and published some 
>>piece of software, for you or your employer.   If MS had the inclination 
>>(maybe your software competes with something they are doing or wish to 
>>do) they could examine your published product for "similarities" with 
>>their own code and start legal proceedings if they find any.  Yes, I 
>>know that reverse-engineering is prohibited in most license agreements 
>>but it happens anyway.
>>
>>Don't be fooled into thinking that this does not happen, I *know* that 
>>it does. 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>_using_ that code.  You would have to be an idiot to use MS's code
>>>without proper permission.  They can unleash a legal nightmare on anyone
>>>that would try to steal their code.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>If you are a software developer it would be best not to even peek at the 
>>leaked code (IMHO).
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>    
>>

> AMAZING POWERS OF OBSERVATION wrote:
>
>  thats a bit of a stretcher isn't it ?
>  
>

No,  it is not.

Mike