> That's misleading (I'm sure non-intentionally). Microsoft have indeed used BSD > code in their systems in the past and as I recall it was the TCP/IP stack - > or portions thereof
Hmmm I meant aside from the TCP/IP stack -- after all, David Wheeler mentions that in the article I linked to -- I should have been more explicit. But, again, I have no proof, so l will call it just a rumor :-) However I am not at all sure Microsoft respects its licensing obligations regarding reused code. The Services for Unix package contains licence texts (including GPLv1, GPLv2, and BSD) but no source code, nor any indication of where to find it. Sean On Jan 20, 2008 10:35 PM, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 20 January 2008 17:01:43 Sean DALY wrote: > > A longstanding rumor, for which I have no proof, is that parts of > > Microsoft's network code was simply copied from BSD code, which if > > true would naturally explain why Microsoft is so hesitant to documents > > its protocols not to mention its code. > > That's misleading (I'm sure non-intentionally). Microsoft have indeed used BSD > code in their systems in the past and as I recall it was the TCP/IP stack - > or portions thereof. This isn't exactly uncommon and if you're choosing a > TCP/IP stack to use, there are worse choices :-) > > However they *have* complied with the BSD license - if you look in the manuals > distributed with windows you will find the appropriate statements. > > It is however not exactly a secret (or even a rumour!) - eg it's trivial to > find here: > * http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306819/en-us > > (you'll see the various notices they're required to include) > > I *believe* (but have no evidence beyond "I've been told") that they've been > reported to have rewritten that code since then, so I'd guess they no longer > need those statements. (I don't have a copy of Vista, so can't (and have no > inclination to) check :) > > The reason for Microsoft not documenting it protocols and code in the way > demanded by some is IMO likely to be for some other reason. I'm going to > refrain from speculating why. I will note that documenting protocols allows > for multiple implementations - enabling competition. I suspect therefore > their decision is based on whether they can see value in competition in that > space or not. (if it grows the market, then everyone benefits including them - > since although their share shrinks the pie grows increasing their income. If > the market is at peak size, it shrinks their market share whilst not growing > the size of the pie, reducing their income) > > Beyond speculating that their decision is based on cold hard money, I'm not > speculating further :-) > > > Michael. > > *personal opinions only* > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
