Originally Posted by k_semler
Yes, but it still ain't right. He may have "mad skillz", but theft is still wrong, as is fradulent activities. I really wouldn't give 2 shits less if he did it for himself, as long as he didn't broadcast an "instruction manual" on how he did it. After all, what would happen if I posted on how to freely activate Win7 Ultimate so it appears as an OEM activation, even though you don't have a legitimate license for the OS? I would get banned is what. Hell, even if I posted a direct link to the source code of MS DOS 6.00, (which I have stored on my HDD), I would probably get banned for that, (or at least a firm warning). Since I can't post stuff I find interesting which is criminal in nature, why should anybody else be able to?
If otherwise, I'll post up the source code to MS-DOS 6.00 to the board for whoever to take for free if that won't piss the mods off. Heck, if the original copyright term was enforced, (14 years), DOS 6.00 would now be public domain Under original copyright law, Even Windows 95 (original aug 95 release), would now be public domain. I also have the source to Win 2000 SP1 also, but I kind of think I would be banned if I were to post that.
1 or 2 Tp2 I could understand, but 6 of them is a flat out scam. So, do I have permission to post Win3.1x, DOS 6.22, and the source to DOS 6.00 without fear of legal ramifications? I have every MS OS ever released since 1981. Hell, if you want Windows 1.02, I have it.
MS should just be glad that I'm not still running my abandonware site. My personal policy was "Unsupported, and at least 2 generations old". If I still had my abandonware site up, I would currently be offering WinXP, and office XP, (and all older versions). Frankly, I think that would be a more sensable copyright law. After all, who really is begging for a copy of Win 2k SP4 Datacenter Server? Pretty much nobody. \
Once upon a time, (6 years ago), I almost got MS and IBM to agree for me to redistribute OS/2 2.1 because they no longer supported it. However, MS backed out because they determined that some current win32 code is present in OS/2 2.1. Apperantly the NT series was based upon it.
|