let's study win2k sourcecode!

[messagedog]

maybe, we may together study windows sourcecode.
and u?

if u need,u may download in http://activex.126.com/

[Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]]

Don't you know it's absolutely illegal? Not only to study the code, but even
to download and share it.
Microsoft is very serious about it, so you'd better remove the code from
your hard disk and from the website .

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Test Studio
http://www.x-unity.net/teststudio.aspx
Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE

"messagedog" <me********@yahoo.com.cn> wrote in message
news:OY****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

maybe, we may together study windows sourcecode.
and u?

if u need,u may download in http://activex.126.com/

[Michael A. Covington]

Actually, under copyright law, it is never illegal to read anything. It is
illegal to copy things without permission, and offhand I don't think you can
read this one without copying it, because of the way the Internet works.

My real concern is that this web link might be something entirely different.
Why should we believe this guy who says it is Microsoft source code?

"Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]" <x-****@no-spam-please.hotpop.com> wrote
in message news:OL****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Don't you know it's absolutely illegal? Not only to study the code, but even to download and share it.
Microsoft is very serious about it, so you'd better remove the code from
your hard disk and from the website .

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Test Studio
http://www.x-unity.net/teststudio.aspx
Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE

"messagedog" <me********@yahoo.com.cn> wrote in message
news:OY****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

maybe, we may together study windows sourcecode.
and u?

if u need,u may download in http://activex.126.com/

[Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]]

> Actually, under copyright law, it is never illegal to read anything. It
is

illegal to copy things without permission, and offhand I don't think you can read this one without copying it, because of the way the Internet works.
I am not a lawyer, still I would suggest the Win2K sources are protected not
only by copyright laws, but also by intellectual property laws. So, there is
no reason for a law-abiding person to even go to check what this web link
contains.

On the other hand, I totally agree with you - the leak of the Win2K source
code can easily be speculated by having curious people wishing to obtain
illegal source code navigated to malicious web pages installing trojans and
viruses to their machines.

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Test Studio
http://www.x-unity.net/teststudio.aspx
Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE

"Michael A. Covington" <lo**@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
in message news:ui****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... Actually, under copyright law, it is never illegal to read anything. It is illegal to copy things without permission, and offhand I don't think you can read this one without copying it, because of the way the Internet works.

My real concern is that this web link might be something entirely different. Why should we believe this guy who says it is Microsoft source code?

"Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]" <x-****@no-spam-please.hotpop.com> wrote
in message news:OL****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Don't you know it's absolutely illegal? Not only to study the code, but

even

to download and share it.
Microsoft is very serious about it, so you'd better remove the code from
your hard disk and from the website .

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Test Studio
http://www.x-unity.net/teststudio.aspx
Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE

"messagedog" <me********@yahoo.com.cn> wrote in message
news:OY****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

maybe, we may together study windows sourcecode.
and u?

if u need,u may download in http://activex.126.com/

[Jesse McGrew]

Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP] wrote:

I am not a lawyer, still I would suggest the Win2K sources are protected not
only by copyright laws, but also by intellectual property laws. So, there is
no reason for a law-abiding person to even go to check what this web link
contains.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I've never heard of "intellectual property
laws" as anything separate from copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
IOW, "intellectual property" just refers to the intellectual works that
are protected by various laws.

And downloading might not even be a violation of copyright. I'm not
aware of any U.S. courts ruling on the issue, but the Canadian courts
recently declared that downloading music doesn't violate copyright, only
uploading (i.e. distributing copies) does.

Jesse

[Michael A. Covington]

"Jesse McGrew" <jm*****@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.anima ls> wrote
in message news:40**********************@news.nntpservers.com ...

Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP] wrote:

I am not a lawyer, still I would suggest the Win2K sources are protected not only by copyright laws, but also by intellectual property laws. So, there is no reason for a law-abiding person to even go to check what this web link contains.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've never heard of "intellectual property
laws" as anything separate from copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
IOW, "intellectual property" just refers to the intellectual works that
are protected by various laws.

There are a few laws that protect trade secrets too. I'm not sure of the
particulars.
And downloading might not even be a violation of copyright. I'm not
aware of any U.S. courts ruling on the issue, but the Canadian courts
recently declared that downloading music doesn't violate copyright, only
uploading (i.e. distributing copies) does.

I wouldn't assume that court decision is going to hold up. Downloading does
cause a copy to be created.

[Jesse McGrew]

Michael A. Covington wrote:

"Jesse McGrew" <jm*****@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.anima ls> wrote
in message news:40**********************@news.nntpservers.com ...

I'm not a lawyer either, but I've never heard of "intellectual property
laws" as anything separate from copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
IOW, "intellectual property" just refers to the intellectual works that
are protected by various laws.

There are a few laws that protect trade secrets too. I'm not sure of the
particulars.

True. Unfortunately for the company, however, once a trade secret has
been revealed, it's no longer protected as a trade secret. They can go
after whoever revealed it to the public, but that's the last of their
trade secret protection.

And downloading might not even be a violation of copyright. I'm not
aware of any U.S. courts ruling on the issue, but the Canadian courts
recently declared that downloading music doesn't violate copyright, only
uploading (i.e. distributing copies) does.

I wouldn't assume that court decision is going to hold up. Downloading does
cause a copy to be created.

That's a matter of interpretation. I'd say that if I ask you to give me
a copy of a song, and you do it, then the only one who "caused" that
copy to be created is you.

I was wrong about the source, though.. it wasn't a court, it was a
ruling by the Canadian Copyright Board.

Jesse

[Tod Moses]

I don't think intellectual property is a good idea, for every knowledge
can be traced back to previous knowledage, so if MS repect intellectual
property, he shall
pay to the first king of Zhou, for he is the first man that demonstrate
binary as now known. and also, he shall pay Alan Turing, and so on, he
shall feed back to the whole knowledge pyramid. Did he do? Could he do?!

This is a common idea, but M$ blind all of you with so called COPYRIGHT.

Knowledge is GOD's property.
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!