On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:27 +0530, Sayamindu Dasgupta wrote: > Ho, > Slashdot and a bunch of other sites have been reporting on rumours of an > alleged leak of Windows 2k source code. M$ recently confirmed this - and > though around 600 MB of the roughly 40 GB code is said to be in > circulation, the potential security implications may be disaestrous. > > http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,4148,1252525,00.asp > > FLOSS developers should steer clear of this code - even they get their > hands on a copy.
OK - replying to myself here - some more details have surfaced <qoute src="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1526831,00.asp";> Analysis indicates files within the leaked archive are only a subset of the Windows source code, which was licensed to Mainsoft for use in the company's MainWin product. MainWin utilizes the source to create native Unix versions of Windows applications. Mainsoft says it has incorporated millions of lines of untouched Windows code into MainWin. Clues to the source code's origin lie in a "core dump" file, which is left by the Linux operating system to record the memory a program is using when it crashes. Further investigation by BetaNews revealed the machine was likely used by Mainsoft's Director of Technology, Eyal Alaluf. </quote> heh! - doze causing core dumps in Linux ;-) And what is worrying is <quote src="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040212190859280";> Groklaw normally doesn't report rumors, but in this case, it seems appropriate to say something early. If there is such a leak, I hope nobody looks at this code. Not one peek. Here's why, taken from Franklin Pierce's "Copyright for Computer Authors" by Thomas G. Field, Jr. on avoiding copyright infringement: "As discussed earlier, copyright gives owners the exclusive right, for example, to reproduce protected subject matter (such things as ideas and facts being excluded). Sometimes a question arises as to whether a second, similar work was copied or independently created. If the person creating a second work had access to the original work and the works are virtually identical, copying is likely to be presumed even if the chance of access is remote." Anyone looking at this code could bring to an end any opportunity to contribute to FOSS software in the future. That's just copyright issues. Copyright isn't the only issue. Patents, trade secret, it's just a minefield. I hope the rumor is false, but if it isn't, please speak to your attorney and to FSF prior to even thinking about looking at such code. And that isn't even addressing the Big Lie issue, with proprietary software companies trying to convince the world that open source coders are dying to steal software and use it to "attack" companies. Exhibit A, Ms. DiDio. If I put my tinfoil hat on, I'd wonder if this "leak" was deliberate, judging by the speed with which the PR machine went into gear, predicting that this leak will lead to such problems. Here is an example of what I mean, an article blatantly setting forth that open source leads to foul play the very same day the story of the MS "leak" occurs. It has the smell of an organized campaign, but I hope not. For now, let's just hope it didn't happen in the first place. </quote> -sdg- -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3
