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
