Microsoft releases DOS and Word for Windows source code

[Edvard]

From the "It ain't GPL, but it's better than a stick in the eye" department.

Microsoft makes source code for MS-DOS and Word for Windows available to public
...
As part of this ongoing project, the museum will make available two of the most widely used software programs of the 1980’s, MS DOS 1.1 and 2.0 and Microsoft Word for Windows 1.1a, to help future generations of technologists better understand the roots of personal computing.

http://blogs.technet...lable-to-public.aspx

Now, what do the good folks at the FreeDOS project have to say about this?

... But don't get too excited about the possibility of merging genuine MS-DOS code into FreeDOS. From the download page: "To access this material, you must agree to the terms of the license ... which permits only non-commercial use and does not give you the right to license it to third parties by posting copies elsewhere on the web." The website makes it very clear the "source and object code to Microsoft?s MS-DOS operating system versions 1.1 and 2.0" is for "non-commercial use" only. It's nice that Microsoft released the MS-DOS source code, but this is not "Free software."

from CodeProject

[40hz]

Welcome to another installment of: Microsoft and the "Art of the Empty Gesture." 

Is anyone truly surprised? 

[Vurbal]

Welcome to another installment of: Microsoft and the "Art of the Empty Gesture." 

-40hz (March 27, 2014, 04:52 AM)

It's important to stick to your strengths.

[wraith808]

Why is it an empty gesture?

[Deozaan]

How is FreeDOS a commercial use?

[40hz]

Why is it an empty gesture?

-wraith808 (March 27, 2014, 01:42 PM)

Because it was not "released to the public" in the normal and generally understood sense in which that phrase is applied. This source code has been made available (i.e. licensed) to individuals who agree to some frankly restrictive licensing terms. Hardly the same as "released to the public" in my world. And I doubt I'm the only one on that planet.

I half suspect this release is intended to give Microsoft an excuse to go after virtually any text processing app with the argument that "they must have borrowed some intellectual property from Microsoft" by sheer virtue of the fact Microsoft's source code has been published.

If it sounds crazy, take a look at all the "presumption of piracy" arguments that are being advanced by large corporations and industry groups in support of ridiculous new laws they're lobbying for.

Sorry for sounding cynical. But I really do think the only reason this code is being released is to establish "primacy" and set the stage for charging opponents with "knowing infringement" in future legal battles.

[mwb1100]

How is FreeDOS a commercial use?

-Deozaan (March 27, 2014, 02:08 PM)

FreeDOS itself might not be commercial, but it permits commercial use.

[wraith808]

Sorry for sounding cynical. But I really do think the only reason this code is being released is to establish "primacy" and set the stage for charging opponents with "knowing infringement" in future legal battles.

-40hz (March 27, 2014, 02:34 PM)

But those terms are no different from the others released by Apple, APL, MacPaint/Quickdraw, and Photoshop.

It seems from the point of history, its a different use than might be thought, but this is nothing new.

The purpose of the Computer History Museum in its own words:

The mission of the Computer History Museum is to preserve and present for posterity the artifacts and stories of the Information Age.

It seems that this is for learning from the past, rather than use.  Which I think is useful for that purpose.

[40hz]

It seems from the point of history, its a different use than might be thought, but this is nothing new.

The purpose of the Computer History Museum in its own words:

The mission of the Computer History Museum is to preserve and present for posterity the artifacts and stories of the Information Age.

It seems that this is for learning from the past, rather than use.  Which I think is useful for that purpose.

-wraith808 (March 27, 2014, 04:29 PM)

If so (in truth) then that's fine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totally unrelated but 'sorta related' side note:

The CHM got hit with a DMCA takedown notice for posting the video of Steve Jobs doing his famous inaugural rollout of the Macintosh. That video never returned to the CHM website. Or at least not last I checked.

Guess whoever holds those rights isn't impressed by CHM's mission statement huh?

[Edvard]

I half suspect this release is intended to give Microsoft an excuse to go after virtually any text processing app with the argument that "they must have borrowed some intellectual property from Microsoft" by sheer virtue of the fact Microsoft's source code has been published.

-40hz (March 27, 2014, 02:34 PM)

I suspect your suspicion borders on the conspiratorial, but I'm also aware of it's validity.  
In the words of the FreeDOS devs:

I'll add a warning that if you download and study the MS-DOS source code, you should not contribute code to FreeDOS afterwards. We want to avoid any suggestion that FreeDOS has been "tainted" by this proprietary code.

 

[40hz]

I suspect your suspicion borders on the conspiratorial, but I'm also aware of it's validity.  
In the words of the FreeDOS devs:

I'll add a warning that if you download and study the MS-DOS source code, you should not contribute code to FreeDOS afterwards. We want to avoid any suggestion that FreeDOS has been "tainted" by this proprietary code.

-Edvard (March 27, 2014, 08:04 PM)

Wow! Here I thought I was indulging in a touch of silly paranoia when along comes the FreeDOS devs weighing in with much the same thinking.



Hmm...Could it be we've both dealt with Redmond "up close and personal" and realize no matter how crazy an idea for dealing with your competition you can come up with, Redmond has probably thought up and given it due consideration already?