Re: Windows source leaked?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:25:11PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: I wonder if frags of OSS code can be found in proprietary binaries. Of course. Here's an example of MS using BSD code: http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357 and another: http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2002-05/msg00606.html
Re: Windows source leaked?
At 05:34 PM 2/13/04 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: In principle they can prove that the secret didn't have any influence on the work, but in practice they're stuck having to prove a negative. I was hoping the courts would see the impossibility of proving a negative, and see true dissimilarities in the code as indicitive of fair play. If push came to shove, the implementors could have sworn that they had never seen the IBM code. But other than their sworn word, how would anyone know what they did, except that their source differed from the original? I hope the precedent of the IBM case and the widespread ability to publish anything instantly nowadays sways an intelligent court without programmers getting harmed. Its rather asymmetric --open source is out there, proprietary isn't. I wonder if frags of OSS code can be found in proprietary binaries.
Re: Windows source leaked?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:45:34AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: (in reply to someone else) Lots has been said about OSS developers not wanting to look at this for fear that they will be tainted. While it is true that simply the act of looking at the code is unauthorized and illegal, If you didn't steal it, its not your problem if you read it. I disagree. I don't have time to look up the cases now but there have been a number of cases of companies being sued for (effectively) their programmers having SEEN some other code. The theory being that they are somehow contaminated with the valuable ideas embodied within and are helpless to resist implementing them. This has resulted in many companies having chinese walls between some programming groups who are working on a version of a competitors product that the company has the code for. This may not be right, but it was extremely common in the early 90s. It's very expensive so I would be quite suprised if there was not strong case law on this. I wonder if there is any truth to the claim that a developer who looked at Windows source would endanger future projects (assuming, of course, that simple copying---which is clearly illegal---doesn't happen). How would M$ show that you had in fact read the code? They'd just alledge that you had, and then have discovery all through your files. Essentially any program could look like an infriging work to some judge somewhere. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say tha MS released the code themselves just for this reason. Eric
Re: Windows source leaked?
At 02:08 PM 2/13/04 -0800, Eric Murray wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:45:34AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
(in reply to someone else)
Lots has been said about OSS developers not wanting to look at this
for fear that they will be tainted. While it is true that simply
the act of looking at the code is unauthorized and illegal,
If you didn't steal it, its not your problem if you read it.
I disagree.
I meant there is no crime in reading anyone elses (lost) trade secrets.
I don't have time to look up the cases now
but there have been a number of cases of companies being sued for
(effectively) their programmers having SEEN some other code.
The theory being that they are somehow contaminated with
the valuable ideas embodied within and are helpless to resist
implementing them. This has resulted in
many companies having chinese walls between some programming
groups who are working on a version of a competitors product that
the company has the code for.
Yes I know about this. The solution was that the engineers
worked from specs only and had never seen the code. It was OK
if the specs were derived from reverse engineering, or in M$'s case,
a source leak. So a cleanroom use of leaked code (Alice extracts specs,
Bob who doesn't look at the code writes to them.) would be OK.
How are you going to show that Bob read the leaked code?
There simply won't be enough similarity *even if* (I'll assert)
Bob does take a peak. Unless he's got photographic memory in
which case he should be in Vegas.
This may not be right, but it was extremely common in the early 90s.
It's very expensive so I would be quite suprised if there was not
strong case law on this.
Its mostly about employee-grabbing being bad, and writing to specs to
interoperate
being ok.
I wonder
if there is any truth to the claim that a developer who looked at
Windows source would endanger future projects (assuming, of course,
that simple copying---which is clearly illegal---doesn't happen).
How would M$ show that you had in fact read the code?
They'd just alledge that you had, and then have discovery
all through your files.
An abuse perhaps, perhaps it would be noticed after the first few
hundred
uses... And one would hide or wipe or shred such files after use anyway,
good hygiene.
Essentially any program could look
like an infriging work to some judge somewhere.
Yes but what to do? Perhaps organizations will help the sued with legal
costs,
precedents will get established that protect folks in the future.
.and goofball judges will be collected on wheelbarrows, bulldozed into
the flaming ovens..
sorry. channelling you know who...
If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say tha MS released the code
themselves just for this reason.
And surely this list is thirsty for conspiracy theories.
\begin{IANAL}
If someone spills the trade secret recipe for Coca Cola, its not the
case that
no one else can ever make a soda closer to Coca Cola than before.
You can sue a ham sandwich. Sucks to be that ham sandwich though.
\end{IANAL}
Re: Windows source leaked?
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 19:02, Justin wrote: Case law on point? I don't think that is true at all. Trade secrets that are leaked are no longer trade secrets. Incorrect. Trade secrets that are deliberately released by the owner are no longer secret. Secrets that are carelessly released by the owner (eg, wide-open path between their web server and their CVS repository) are probably no longer secrets, but that's subject to finding of fact if it goes to trial. Secrets that are stolen or illegally leaked are still legally secrets. That's pretty clear, though things like developers leaving a company and using their knowledge elsewhere can be questionable. That's why most companies have non-disclosure forms for you to sign when you start work. Regarding case law cites, you can check google or findlaw as well as I. Here, for the lazy or inept, is a useful page: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/research/EFF_General_8.html I think the issue would be copyright and/or patent violation. That, too. In the case of IBM's PC-BIOS that I mentioned before, IBM relied on copyright rather than trade secret. (Obviously, given that they released the source themselves.) Note, also, that that happened in the days before rampant software patents. If the same were to happen today, they'd almost certainly get a patent on their BIOS, and Compaq wouldn't have been able to do their clean-room reimplementation.
Re: Windows source leaked?
Steve Furlong (2004-02-13 22:34Z) wrote: Eric is correct in his reply to MV's article. Joe Programmer isn't necessarily obligated not to look at leaked trade secrets, but if he implements anything remotely related to the leaked secret, he and his employers or customers are subject to being sued for using the secret. Case law on point? I don't think that is true at all. Trade secrets that are leaked are no longer trade secrets. I think the issue would be copyright and/or patent violation. I seem to recall something about copyright periods for trade secrets not beginning until the secret is released, a similar situation being patents issued to the NSA or other TLAs... they only start ticking when the patent is revealed. So trade secrets offer a copyright advantage. Obviously, if you can locate the persons who released a trade secret, you can probably sue them because they're probably under contract. But suing random people who happened to have looked at trade secrets and implemented similar non-patented code? Sounds shaky. -- No humanitarian endeavor can ever fill the void left by my past crimes. -Sloane
Windows source leaked?
Among others, /. is reporting that Win2k and WinNT source code may have leaked. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/12/2114228 Does anyone here have any good evidence as concerns the truth or falsity of this claim? Lots has been said about OSS developers not wanting to look at this for fear that they will be tainted. While it is true that simply the act of looking at the code is unauthorized and illegal, I wonder if there is any truth to the claim that a developer who looked at Windows source would endanger future projects (assuming, of course, that simple copying---which is clearly illegal---doesn't happen). Comments? -- Riad Wahby [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIT VI-2 M.Eng
Re: Windows source leaked?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 06:25:25PM -0500, Riad S. Wahby wrote: Windows source would endanger future projects (assuming, of course, that simple copying---which is clearly illegal---doesn't happen). Comments? Why would it? There may be some problems on the margin, but for the most part I think it's /. silliness. -Declan
