![]() Yes Microsoft can taken them for breach of NDA but the work they produced would be legal to base on because there was no stolen/leaked works. Lets say someone signs NDA with Microsoft to see windows source code then documents what they signed and publishes their written documentation. This by case example does not case when the work is stolen. –They want copyright to be retrospectively like buying a book, you pay before you read, but software copyright is not like that, it’s pay before you use.– USA Copyright law does not prevent Son of Sam and Misappropriation doctrine from being applied in copyright cases in the USA in cases of stolen or leaked intellectual property. Yes the knowledge itself comes protected when you acquire illegally. Son of Sam changes derivative big time its a derivative if you used any knowledge from the leaked/stolen work when Son of Sam is in play because you cannot profit in anyway from a crime. Stolen/leaked works moves you out of copyright law defines and into criminal/felony defines. One problem here the this allowance of copyright are nuked by Son of Sam and Misappropriation doctrine for a stolen/leaked work. –To be derivative it has to use / reuse some of the code, be it a function or a label, the knowledge contained in the copy isn’t covered by copyright.– You are not legally allowed to profit from a crime. The work being stolen automatically has full Misappropriation.īuilding a foundation on a Misappropriated work is path to legal doom. ![]() Stolen copyright work really changes the rules.Ĭpcf the problem is “Misappropriation” part of laws this alters when item you are using technically has not been acquired legally. ![]() Yes its a very different thing to apply a disassembler to copy of Windows you bought and write documentation how it works that then Reactos/Wine developers can use because there was no stolen copyright work. So what ever work you make based on leaked windows source code effectively is copyright infringement against Microsoft.l Yes Microsoft legally can sue anyone using anything based off that leaked source code even if none of Microsoft code is there in the work that gets distributed. You based what you are doing on a stolen copyright work what you make is a derivative work because you could not have made it without the theft right. Copyright is valid for 70+ years so its not expired. Leaked source code is a stolen copyright work. ”’While the code itself might not be useful, it’s more than very useful for a group like ReactOS when designing compatible solutions.Ĭpcf not useful at all to projects like Reactos or wine. Heck, if I remember right, about 15 years ago they shut the whole project down for a year to do a full audit just because they suspected there might be a little “borrowed” code (without any accusation or any evidence that there was). Of course if Microsoft were caught “borrowing” someone else’s code, they’d probably just laugh and throw a few million $$ at it. ![]() Linux? The leaked code is before WSL got introduced so.) and Microsoft have their own annoying conventions (e,g, burying C/C++ types under their own types, like “LPVOID” because a “void *” is just too sensible, and “DWORD ” because “uint32_t” is too new and “u32” isn’t 80×86 enough) that’d make copying code hard. Possibly but I’m not sure who they’d copy code from (OS/2? No, that was half Microsoft’s anyway. To be absolutely clear I don’t know of any specific incident, but to the extent that some developers do copy code and microsoft has hired lots of developers over the years, it’s statically probable that there’s some of that in windows. The inverse is possible too, microsoft may be infringing on other people’s source code too. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |