I agree but here's a reality check. The outlook is father grim and we won't live until the copyright expires. From copyright.gov, works created after 1978 have their copyright expired 70 years after the death of its author. In case of Windows ME, we're looking at all the devs croaking, Microsoft dissolving and then 70 years of waiting unless we're in for a near future apocalypse scenario.
Amiga scene pretty much showcases the nightmarish hellscape of copyright law. There is always someone somewhere out there that owns a piece of the whole thing and will sue for lulz. czw., 26 wrz 2019, 16:04 użytkownik Michael C Robinson < [email protected]> napisał: > > Quoting andrew fabbro <[email protected]>: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:36 AM Michael C Robinson < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Is it possible to get the source code to Windows 9x and ME since > >> Microsoft isn't supporting it anymore? > >> One would want to get the source code and then open source it of > >> course. Even Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.11 is closed source. Surely, > >> Microsoft could release pre 9x Windows? It wouldn't hurt Microsoft at > >> all since Windows > >> is squarely NT based now where many modern systems won't even support > >> DOS let alone DOS based Windows. I realize it would probably be very > >> expensive to get Microsoft to cough up the source code, but has anyone > >> even looked into this? > >> > > > > "It wouldn't hurt Microsoft" is not exactly a true statement. > > > > Major reasons MSFT won't be releasing source code like that: > > > > (1) Some components are still in use. Microsoft does not rewrite their > OS > > from scratch with each new version and while Windows 10 is very different > > than Windows Me, it's still an x86 OS. > > > > (2) There may be pieces they licensed or are under others' copyrights. > > Sorting that out is non-trivial. This is true especially of things like > > drivers. > > > > (3) Source code often reveals the inner workings of companies and > > products. It's not unusual to see things like "we put this in because > our > > other product has a bug and we have to compensate" and comments like > that. > > Not to mention profanity :-) > > > > (4) Many times old source code hides other embarrassing (or > > semi-embarrassing) secrets. There was a leak of Windows 2000 many years > > ago and I read that it had comments such as "(some app) breaks here so we > > put in this workaround to maintain compatibility with previous versions". > > This would inevitably lead to all kinds of press about favoring different > > vendors, etc. > > > > (5) And the big one...where's the money in releasing old source code? It > > takes lawyers, tech people, etc. and likely would cost a fair amount of > > money just to package it up. > > > > BTW, Microsoft has (or at least at one time had) various programs where > > universities had access to the source code, but that was under NDA. > > > > -- > > andrew fabbro > > [email protected] > > ReactOS won't replace Windows 9x/ME because it is not dos based. > Originally the target was 9x, but they gave up on that :-( For stuff > that isn't supported anymore but should be, surely all the players > could come together and release source code. Frankly, I think it > should be the law that you have to release source code if you stop > supporting a popular OS. Aren't some of the licenses pushing 20 years > now? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >
_______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
