Microsoft Source Follow-Up

shystershep writes "It's official. Microsoft admits that 'portions of the Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 source code were illegally made available on the Internet.' No more details, although it seems clear that it is only a portion of the code. Microsoft is, naturally, downplaying its impact, while everyone else is busy speculating about how serious this could get." A lot of you apparently haven't read yesterday's story. An investigation of the code is already underway.

Comments

Winsock API Included.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Winsock API is included in the leaked source that's something fantastic hahaha.

Re:Winsock API Included.

[Copperhead]

So, can someone write a patch to make IE properly support PNGs?

From Rich Bowen's blog...

[tcopeland]

...right here:

Second, we're going to see lawsuits in the next 2 years where Microsoft identifies code in Linux, added after February 10, 2004, which are either copied from, or influenced by, the Windows source code. And, as absurd as this is, it will be used to have, as Microsoft would say, a chilling effect on innovation.

Hm. I bet Andrew Morton has better things to do then trawl through WinNT code. Staying away from it does seem safest, though...

Which is it?

[onyxruby]

Is this damaging because 15% of the source to the NT / W2K tree was leaked and we're all suddenly vulnerable or is this no big deal since the code is three years old and it's only 15%? I haven't heard anyone talking about DRM, activation or serial code being in the leak, so I just don't see how this could affect MS other than to help interoperability of other software.

Of course it's a small percentage...

[SpaceBadger]

...of the total that accepted wisdom says makes up the full source tree, but what percentage of the full source is for the thousands of drivers etc. that really aren't part of the OS proper.

I wouldn't be so sure that what has leaked is an insignificant portion just because of the number of lines of code.

A Prediction ...

[starfire-1]

Maybe I'm a little jaded, but my guess is that in about a year, when we're closer to the Longhorn release, Microsoft will claim that the heritage Win2000/NT4 core is "too compromised" because of this leak and officially discontinue support prior to its seven year life-cycle. Along then along with Win98, everyone will be compelled to migrate to their new products.

Just a thought... :)

Re:source out on the open

[djh101010]

I mentioned that yesterday and was called some sort of IP alarmist. THIS IS SERIOUS - if you now or in the future contribute your own IP to the open-source world, don't look at Microsoft's source code. You won't learn anything useful, and more importantly, you need to be able to truthfully say "I've never seen it, and specifically and intentionally avoided getting a copy of it or looking at it".

The odds of coming up with something vaguely similar to their stuff is high enough that it's not worth being accused of copying their work. The best defense against such an accusation is to have never seen their work.

If I were a tinfoil-hat kind of person, I'd wonder if this isn't some sort of SCO-ish related thing.

Re:source out on the open

[s4m7]

Billy in the land of the underpants gnomes:

Step 1: 'accidentally' release windows source
Step 2: Secretly hire unafiliated programmer to copy blocks of windows source to OSS projects (comments intact)
Step 3: Sue IBM/RedHat/Novell into the ground
Step 4: Profit!

Doesn't this smell?

[Cytlid]

Is it just me or does this smell like a stealth PR stunt to you? Gee... source code gets leaked... this hits a few communities right in the nose. Now MS can say "See, open source is bad because all these new viruses are made because our source was leaked" and "File-sharing is bad because this is how this is moving around the internet". It's just too conveniently making MS look like a victim.

here's my bet

[CAIMLAS]

I've given this topic considerable thought, and here are the possible conclusions I've reached.

1) MS will use this source leak in the future to claim that various open source projects (Samba, Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice(?), linux) that get new features which MS finds competitive are 'derivative' works, regardless of whether or not the developers actually looked at the source.
2) There will be enough people looking at this source for large portions of the code's functionality essentially entering into 'public domain', with people writing up how the components work. It will be essentially impossible for anyone to do 'virgin' development on 'windows-like' features for anything, as the information on precisely what the Windows version does will only be 2 steps of association from the programmer.
3) MS will pull a 'patent' or 'trade secret' violation claim on Samba/Linux/GNOME/KDE, in addition to pulling the .NET framework out from underneath the Linux community (by claiming patent infringement again). Two shovels of dirt on the grave of linux.

From my interpretation, this all seems quite feasable given current legal atmosphere. Any lawyers here have a comment on this?

Re:source out on the open

[jruschme]

The Groklaw warning echoes thoughts I had as soon as I heard the comments on the radio about how a competitor could use MS's IP in a competing product. That said, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if it's possible that Microsoft orchestrated the leak themselves in the hopes of polluting one or more Open Source products (e.g., Linux Kernel, Wine, etc.) and then later launching a series of SCO-style lawsuits. Think about it...

1. Release portions of an older baseline which have already been fixed/replaced (to minimize the hacker potential), but are algorithmically distinctive enough to be recognized if they were used in another product.
2. Wait for a well-meaning open source user to submit one of the pieces as a patch to the Linux kernel
3. Scan new kernels for distictive algorithm. When found
4. Launch expensive lawsuit at RedHat, Lindows, et al. Demand injunctions against distribution, damages, etc.

Or maybe, I've just read too much SCO-IBM coverage here. --John

Re:Windows developers do not read GPL source

[pla]

if the developers of B have never read the source of A, or anything derived from A, it's pretty sure that B will not look like A.

Except, in the realm of software, that just doesn't apply. A "best way" often exists to accomplish some simple task, and 20 good developers would all independantly "discover" that way. Even in more complicated code, you'll see a large overlap of broader ideas, all arising independantly

This makes one of my peeves about software patents... Patents include the critiria of non-obviousness. If 20 developers would all come up with the same solution, that seems like a pretty damned obvious technique, IMO.

Take the XOR'ed image patent, for example... Even ignoring the idea of prior art (which IMO existed), using XOR to put one image on top of another such that you can later remove the superimposed image cleanly (ie, a mouse cursor over a background), even a moron would use XOR. Yet, the USPTO still decided to grant that one.

So yes, very similar works do arise, totally independant of each other, in the field of software engineering. Unfortunately, considering our legal system's pro-corporate bias, that will most likely work against us. Rather than believing that Billy G and Linus both came up with printf("Hello World\n");, this source release will quite likely suffice to convince the courts that various open source projects "stole" such trivial statements from Microsoft code.

Or to borrow a joke from the SCO threads, "Wow, look at all of the i++; statements those damned open source commies used, just like in SCO's code!"

alternate universe

[SirSlud]

i cannt re-iterate how stupid all thie fear is ....

check out this alternate universe:

musicians are fucked. apparently, we can't look at other peoples copywritten music without 'taining' our ability to write original music.

everybody from bach to bon jovi is now in violation of copywright law. musicians have henceforth been instructed never to look at somebody elses music lest they be sued later for copying the notes and rhythms.

harumph. this is rediculous.

Re:source out on the open

[the_mad_poster]

Windows kernel gets the kernel GPL'd

How can a site so full of OSS supporters have so many people so ignorant of how software licensing works? Yes, if they were found to be infringing the GPL they COULD GPL the whole kernel, but that would be stupid. They would just pay damages for infringement and remove the GPL code from future releases. This "viral licensing" bullshit is so idiotic, I can't understand how it got started. I blame SCO.

Re:DON'T TOUCH IT

[spitzak]

This seems to be a popular opinion, but it is false.

You are buying into the same FUD Microsoft is spewing about the GPL.

Just looking at the code does not "taint" you. There are plenty of ex-Microsoft employees who have looked at Microsoft source code and have then contributed to non-Microsoft projects (not just OSS, but closed-source from competing companies). Really, are you claiming that a coder that has seen Microsoft's code is legally impossible to employ except at Microsoft? What if some poor sap has seen both Microsoft's code and a competitor like Suns? They can't ever work on software again anywhere?

Conversely Microsoft hires people all the time that have looked at GPL code. They don't seem worried that these people are "tainted" despite the fact that their public announcements would seem to indicate that it is impossible for such people to work there.

The person/company in trouble is the one that made the code available. Apparently this is somebody at Mainsoft, who should be punished hard. This sort of behavior is extremely damaging to IT!