[KLUG Advocacy] Access to Micro$oft Windows Source Code

[Adam Williams]

>I saw a headline in the Chicago Tribune newspaper recently
>that stated "Micro$oft Ordered by Judge to Release Windows
>Source Code"  Almost broke my neck as my body jerked around
>to look at this article.  Could it be?  See article below!
>Who isn't in the Linux camp, so to say, these days?  IBM, 
>un, Dell, HP/Compaq, Apple, even AOL & Walmart... except

I'd hardly call Apple, AOL, or Walmart as in the Linux Camp.  For Apple
the openness of OS X is clearly an act of desperation;  for Walmart it
is just another chance to hawk some cheap crap.  Time Warner (aka AOL)
is a backer of DMCA, UCITA, etc...  and AOL has been posturing about
using LINUX for years, and never delivered anything (not even a protocol
spec, AFAIK).  Sun says something nasty about Linux for every nice thing
it says.    HP/Compaq and IBM are clearly on board, but Dell?  There
Linux support is very half hearted, kind of a 'it will sell a few more
boxes' attitude.  Again, AFAIK, Dell has not hosting a single Linux
development project.

>Micro$oft, eh?  Will Micro$oft somehow divert this obvious
>acceptance with "1 degree of separation from the Unix Geeks"
>advertisements?  In one word - NOPE!
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24095.html

Availability os source to "states" won't help us at all.  Even "Open
Source" without rights provided under things like GPL, LGPL, or BSD is
useless, even bad;  creating a legal mind field.  Did someone who saw
the code then contribute to the Samba project?  Is Samba now in
violation of copyright law?  Nasty.