Can we view, modify, redistribute?
No one wants to get sued for these things, or being found to violate some end user license agreement with some other Microsoft software.
On the other hand, I'd love to find out that people viewing this code contribute an improvement that no one in Microsoft saw in decades that helps them improve something today, leading them to soften their stance on Free Software and copyright.
We can dream.
Just speaking for myself, I come down pretty firmly in the "Don't know, don't care" camp for both questions.
In a world where FreeDOS exists, there just isn't any practical value to having the source code to MS-DOS 2.0 available under a truly open license. That code's only interesting as a historical exhibit. If all we can do is look at it and go, "Huh, so that's how that worked", that's fine with me.
Unless Microsoft licenses it under a license with the most explicit and extensive protections against patent lawsuits.
As a bonus, the availability of this code might make prior art challenges to extant patents much easier.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/business/microsoft-loses-c...
> The Patents and Trademark Office, which began issuing software patents only a decade ago, has been accused of having inadequate expertise in software to judge what is truly novel.
Nice to know nothing has changed in a decade.
While thinking about it a little more deeply let's give them the benefit of doubt for five minutes and assume they did hire a bunch of geeks to do this. Is there any possibility the problem simply can't be solved easily? What seems complex and patentable today may in fact seem completely obvious and novel in ten years when it actually shows up in court or even just 5 years from now once it finally gets reviewed and accepted.
In searching for prior art, is it actually possible to go back in time on the wayback machine and check for these types of obvious issues with the claim?
Something to think about anyway. Disclosure: kiwi here. We did some form of reform already, havtn t noticed anything adverse thus far.
Would be interested to hear if anyone has come across problems yet.
The bigger concern would be copyright. That might be a fairly plausible argument for why FreeDOS developers shouldn't be reading this source. Though realistically the odds that Microsoft would actually pursue such a case are remote at best.
Yeah, but usually you cannot get extensions THAT easily, and extensions are limited in time. I don't think you can expect extensions to last too long either (at most you can add a couple of years of exclusivity).
Now exFAT is much more recently encumbered.
The chance that you are going to get MSDOS expressive structures in FreeDOS in a way that is even arguably beyond deminimis is nil. You don't usually just move code between implementations easily, and chances are pretty good that the FreeDOS folks use fairly different approaches than the MSDOS folks. The argument is that if you read the code you might be tainted, but I don't see this as a significant argument here for software that's 30 years old.
INAL, But if you are contributing to projects on tangential areas you should be OK.
Basically, if you touch this with a ten-foot-pole, the pole now belongs to Microsoft, along with your arm and anybody standing too close to you. You also lose the right to use your arm to sell things.
If you're in academia and getting a stipend and you look at it as part of your research, Microsoft could argue that that is a commercial gain to you. If FreeDOS has ever been used to make a commercial product (this is very different from the GPL which explicitly delineates derivative works from works produced by the software!), then its developers risk breaking the terms of the license agreement if they taint their thought processes with Microsoft's code. So yes, I'd probably say you're right.
This is a really serious issue, because we can be reasonably certain that Microsoft wants to release a new version of DOS in the reasonably near future and so this is a sinister plot to get a nonexclusive license to FreeDOS so they can charge licensing fees. Quite ingenious.....
[/sarcasm]
You may use, copy, reproduce, and distribute this Software for any non-commercial purpose
you may create derivative works of such portions of the Software and distribute the modified Software for non-commercial purposes
You may not distribute or publish the software or Derivative Works.Yes, Yes, No.
That's why it's explicitly listed as part of Freedom 1 of the four freedoms of software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Unless your shower is located on a stage and you charge admission for people to listen to you sing in the shower, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
But can you publish a diff, which someone could use to recreate your modified version?
There are SueprMarioBros. edits where they only distribute the patching file and the patcher program... just not the original ROM itself. They leave that for you to find somewhere...
That's not going to be the case here as the code is too old to be patent encumbered.
Things are certainly moving towards there being a wide definition of contributory copyright infringement, eg cases against torrent file sites that don't store copyright works. It would be pretty asinine and regressive to punish someone for publishing instruction on a copyright work could be modified, IMO, but the law isn't known for always making sense.
https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues...
In reality, if redistribution of source is forbidden, restricting unreleased modifications of source is hard to enforce.
In any case, the parent commenters point wasn't the difference in the two research lab's results, but the difference in philosophies between the labs and their respective parent companies.
Another notable one is the original discovery of the cosmic microwave background, the primordial echo of the Big Bang, which is still being investigated today. That was a 1974 Nobel Prize.
A nice list is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs#Discoveries_and_devel...
Basically, the GP comment is really quite wrong.
Do Nobel prizes and Turing awards count as instinct or are they facts?
Its not comparing apples to apples but again, if dissing MSR for not being Bell Labs - great then.
Some argue that you can again, but I just don't see how it is possible. See, e.g., http://www.amazon.com/The-Idea-Factory-American-Innovation/d...
No redistribution and the license can be revoked.
(also: must be research or education, mustn't be commercial, and you are licensing derivative works to Microsoft somehow)
If you create Derivative Works, you grant to Microsoft a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, assignable, sublicenseable license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, modify, use, make, have made, import, and sell such Derivative Works.
EDIT: I can just imagine a future lawsuit:
A: Did you read the MS-DOS source code released by Microsoft on XX? We have logs to show you downloaded it.
B: Yes, but that has nothing to do with this lawsuit!
A: Incorrect. The MS-DOS source code you viewed is under Patent ZZ. We believe you used the IP found in the MS-DOS source code to build your flying car.
Judge: Guilty!
Yes. Design patents last 14 years. Utility patents last 20 years.
The person you are responding to, like most people, likely uses the words copyright, trademark and patent interchangeably as if they are synonyms.
I don't think reading some source code will put anyone at risk of frivolous lawsuits (unless they actually do infringe, in which case it would be a grain of supporting evidence).
P.S. Google Patents is useless for answering this question. "Referenced by" is included in the search, so any patent from 1983 that is ever referenced by a Microsoft patent (from any year) shows up in the results.
I finally found the link to Advanced Search. It's off the Settings menu. I could swear it used to be right there next to the Search button ...
I guess I've just been using memorized operators on Google, and haven't actually looked for the Advanced Search link in quite a while.
It's like what Microsoft does with configuration dialogs. They design a new UI, but it doesn't do 100% of the what old UI did. So they keep the old UI, and shove it one level down. Then in another few years, they'll design yet another new UI, and I'll have to click two levels down ...
I did an advanced search at USPTO for "AN/microsoft and ISD/19750101->19890101" (patents assigned to Microsoft and issued between 1975 and 1989). All it found were:
4,779,187 - Method and operating system for executing programs in a multi-mode microprocessor (filed April 10, 1985, issued October 18, 1988)
4,588,074 - Holder for storing and supporting articles (filed March 21, 1985, issued May 13, 1986)
Yes, if I understand it correctly, Microsoft's first patent was "relates to article holders, and more particularly to a dual purpose holder for both storing, and supporting in open position, books, magazines, pamphlets, and similar items."
I can't figure out why 5,848,246 (Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Object-oriented system, method and article of manufacture for a client-server session manager in an interprise [sic] computing framework system) references this patent.
As for:
> 4,588,074 - Holder for storing and supporting articles ... Yes, if I understand it correctly, Microsoft's first patent
At one point, Microsoft Press was a big player in the publishing market. For example, Peter Norton's book on the IBM PC was published by Microsoft Press.
I imagine they needed a way to store multi-volume sets together.
As for MSFT not having any patents in 1983, this is largely the result of the policy of not patenting "abstract ideas" that was argued in the courts at the time. The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the PTO were in opposing positions regarding the patentability of inventions that were essentially algorithmic.
The key log that stopped discouraging patent applications for software was Diamond v. Diehr in 1981, which involved applying a mathematical formula to a database of information for operating rubber curing machines under computer control.[1]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has largely followed this method since this decision. Between the early 70s[2] and Diehr, SCOTUS settled disputes when Customs and Patent Appeals attempted to overrule the PTO and its Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences/Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
[0] I'm lazy, you get wikipedia. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr [2] Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson
There's very little to learn from operating system design point of view in there, and better sources are available under more permissive licenses -- ie open source licenses.
It looks like a PR stunt to me.
There was xenix. As inconceivable as people might find it today, people CHOSE to run simple DOS over Unix on their very resource-constrained hardware.
Minix 1.0 ran on a 8086/8088
In reality, getting the Windows source released so that the Wine team can do this would be much more useful. From what I understand Windows has a lot more undocumented but widely used API's that Wine tries to emulate by trial and error. Instead of having a complete emulation they break it down by which programs it can and cannot run because of these hidden API's.
This is definitely a publicity stunt, no question about it. It still provides some very minimal value and perhaps this is MS dipping their toes into the OSS water when it comes to old commercial products.
MS-DOS has been disassembled and reverse engineered to death by these teams, and there's little if anything at all left to discovered.
What they don't have are the comments.
It's not a PR stunt, it's a part of computing history (whether you like it or not). I spent a lot of time hacking around the internals of DOS and I think this might be a fascinating read. I remember pouring over Ralf Brown's Interrupt List and stepping through various DOS memory structures trying to create some impossible app. Good times.
What you are saying is like saying that putting Ford Model T blueprints to museum is useless because we have far better sources today to study car mechanics from.
I mean, Adobe also released the source code for an old version of Photoshop. So old that it didn't even have layers. It didn't signal anything about the release of source code for say, Flash Player.
And look at which version of Word they released -- 1.1. Not even 2.0, because 2.0 was the version where it became mainstream.
Microsoft has already released a lot of source code that's a lot more useful than DOS and WinWord. For example, the .NET Framework Reference Source.
I understand your point, but in one important sense, this release has value. Someday, a scholar is going to write the history of drive letters and their perverse effect on all of computing -- up to the present day, where they're buried under a thin patina of respectability in the newest versions of Windows.
Under Windows, including the most recent versions, you can get repeatable results for procedures that involve peripherals only if you disconnect them all, then reconnect them in the same order each and every time. Why? Drive letters.
This might be excusable on historical grounds, except that, when MS-DOS was first written, there was already an OS without drive letters -- Unix.
So don't use drive letters.
Mount each volume in its own separate NTFS folder. Now you'll get repeatable results no matter what order you plug them in.
Found MS's description [1]. However, that's not useable by most office workers, and the steps are likely beyond the average home user. So it's really just a feature for power users and IT departments.
[1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321.aspx
MS-DOS was a program that wrote stuff to disk for you, read the keyboard for you, listened to interrupts for things and showed useful error messages such as 'Retry, Fail or Abort?'.
There was no networking to speak of, certainly not TCP/IP as we know it, no user permission things, you couldn't run cron jobs and the list goes on. All of this normal stuff that an Operating System does was well established on UNIX boxes, VAXes and, to a certain extent, on the BBC Micro.
Consider that OSs started out as libraries of functions that programs could call into, which then evolved into job managers, that is where MS-DOS fits.
It's single-tasking, single-address-space, but it already has the concept of processes, drivers, files. This is still more than some embedded OSs which are not much more than a threading library.
It provided a memory allocator service.
Given that it was a disk operating system it's no surprise that the bulk of the services are disk/filesystem-related, but it also has ones for I/O, memory, timing, and processes.
And if I want to run a TOS (Tape Operating System), how should I call it? The naming is correct and comes from IBM mainframe operating systems from the 60's.
The BBC micro's operating system had no networking to speak of, certainly not TCP/IP as we know it, no user permission things (indeed, no concept of users at all), and no cron jobs (indeed, no OS scheduling of tasks at all). In other words, not one of the things you specifically called out as "normal stuff that an Operating System does".
(There was a networking system, called Econet, but it wasn't part of the base OS; you needed an extra ROM -- physically plugged into the circuit board, those were the days -- that implemented it.)
For the avoidance of doubt: I loved the Acorn MOS and hated MS-DOS. But it simply isn't true that the BBC Micro had those features and MS-DOS didn't. And, for what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with calling either of them an operating system.
I downloaded and dorked around with the code out of respect for what it did to PC’s 30 years ago. It’s interesting, I thought the codebase would be much larger than it is.
Actually there is quite a bit already for a single person to digest, if you want to understand the real details of how everything works. I learned about the DOS family by reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Dissecting-DOS-Code-Level-Operating-Sy...
UnixV6 and the Lions' book come close, but Unix is still far more complex than DOS because of its multitasking, multiuser heritage. Early Unices may be within the realm of an average student to grasp, but things like the BSD and Linux kernels are orders of magnitude bigger and more complex, which means that it's nearly impossible to get down to the details when studying them and the best thing one can hope for is a high-level overview of the various subsystems and how they interact. DOS is simple enough that a single person can study the whole OS at the level of individual instructions (and write an OS similar to it).
Software patents are bad enough without gratuitous fear-inducing claims added.