thats a bit of a stretcher isn't it ? 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 >
