What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Bill_McKenzie-3 · June 11, 2007, 7:17pm

I am not even sure you could say that they gave you the opportunity

Bill M.

“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Peter Wieland wrote:
>> So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
>> what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
>> hear too.
>>
>> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
>> I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
>> that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
>>
>> At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
>> them?
>>
>
> This is a good point. As a DDK MVP, I was offered the opportunity to
> gain access to the source code. I seriously considered it, but after
> reading through the agreement documents, my concerns about
> contamination, and about what I could say and what I couldn’t say, were
> just enough over the comfort line for me that I turned it down. Now, if
> I took some dedicated quiet time and read the documents more carefully,
> I would probably find that my concerns were unfounded, but I’m afraid
> I’d need a lawyer to be 100% sure.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>

Bill_McKenzie-3 · June 11, 2007, 7:25pm

This is kind of humurous. How, pray tell, would one think MSFT would be in
some bad position by giving out source? I mean really…who is going to
displace you in the operating system arena? The only thing MSFT has to
worry is disruptive technologies. It is EXACTLY akin to IBM in the main
frame days. If it hadn’t been for PCs (a disruptive technology), I dare say
we would still all be buying from Big Blue. No one can compete against
Microsoft with an operating system even if they threw an army of developers
at the problem. Windows isn’t number one because of the cool programming
you guys put into it. It is number one because it has had years to grow
roots.

No, the only risk to Microsoft is PCs not being the machine on everyones’
desktops. Other than that, this is just silly.

The ONLY reason I want source is so that I can make OUR software better on
Microsoft’s operating system. If my software sucks…guess who the end user
blames? Does “Yeah Windows crashes all the time” sound familiar to you?
Okay…don’t give me source…fine.

I tell you what, I would be willing to sign an agreement that my company
would ship our products on Windows operating systems for some reasonable
block of time into the future. How’s that?

Bill M.

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
>

>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

David_J_Craig · June 11, 2007, 7:27pm

I have heard that source code licensees receive media with the sources they
are allowed to have on them, a smartcard, and a smartcard reader. Most of
this is rumor, but from fairly reliable, I hope, sources. I presume most
have to sign a NDA to receive that access. In companies, how to obtain
enough copies for several to many developers becomes a problem to be solved.
I see from my perspective of currently working in the NDIS arena, but
previously being in the storage and filesystems areas that sources to KMDF,
IoManager, MountManager, Ftdisk, CacheManager, NTFS, NDIS, Kernel and Hal
sources would be useful. A corporate level NDA would be acceptable, but if
it was restricted in that info could not be shared with co-workers in the
same company that might make the access much less useful to the company, but
still very valuable individually.

–
David J. Craig
Engineer, Sr. Staff Software Systems
Broadcom Corporation

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
>

>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Bill_McKenzie-3 · June 11, 2007, 7:30pm

If we are talking about KMDF source, I would be REAL curious to know what
the risk is? People might actually be able to see how certain kernel
operations should be done and thus won’t do those things wrong?

Bill M.

“Daniel Terhell” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?
>
> I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
> after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and
> running some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some
> other changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to
> the judge at the binary level it was originally created from the same
> source is not unimaginable. I don’t know what a non-buildable version of
> the source exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does
> not change much.
>
> However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
> releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
> license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
> lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
> source is going to be too hard for some.
>
> /Daniel
>
>
>
> “Peter Wieland” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
> what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
> hear too.
>
> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
> I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
> there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
>
> At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
> them?
>
> -p
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
> emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
> what happened? Nothing noticeable.
>
> MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
> necessary power realizes it.
>
> Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
> code. I’m looking forward for it
>
> Michal
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
>> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
>> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>>
>> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
>> system:
>>
>>

>>
>> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>>
>> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
>> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
> a
>> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
> be,
>> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
> OS
>> widely available.
>>
>> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
> Whatever.
>> Those people get what they deserve.
>>
>> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
> those
>> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>>
>> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
> code?
>> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
>> Chinese and Russian sites).
>>
>> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
> code
>> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
> well
>> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
> The
>> good feelings among the community members.
>>
>> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
> could
>> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
> for
>> guidance.
>>
>> P
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
>

Prokash_Sinha-1 · June 11, 2007, 8:05pm

Ah, this is my playground now Anyone can whack on my head, but what
the hell… ? Following few paras are neither programming nor math ( so
assume full of ambiguities and room for fire ).

What should be published:- I particularly don’t care much about
published code, but if you try to publish just kmdf and umdf, then if no
one does it, I will start complaining at this site. If there is a plan for
publishing, then at least the I/O sub-systems or some smaller logical
component that in isolation would give devs some level of detail they
would need. Again I think the whole of I/O subsystem would be the
candidate component…
Who should be the guena pigs:- Of course MVPs should be the first one,
and they could perhaps be more active instead of just depending on you,
doron, Elyias, Jake, … Others can possibly have component level source
licensing for small fee ( note that some big companies have src license
already, and if person x does copy these codes and leave the company some
day, and never exposes this fact that (s)he have those codes, and uses it
loyally or maliciously it would be fairly hard to track, so perhaps
signing is not effective, and I still prefer that it should be to MVPs)
What should be signed:- If it is just MVPs, then perhaps they are
already trusted, and loyal and keeping it in a limited exposure ( if you
mean that way by signing, in stead of open-src idea ).
Rest of the crowd:- Lot of companies are even hesitant to send their
devs for training or conference, so they might not want to sign anything
!!!
Mode of availability:- I would prefer that the subcomponent is/are
buildable, so that those who are debugging can see it in action. Give some
one 100+ thousands line of codes in static form ( so that they can not
build), you will see the interest levels drops. For me it is absolutely
essential, since most of the time I debug some-one-elses’ whims and
desires and that could span a very large spectrum of driver and app world.

-pro

Before you publish, what is the compelling reason from the devs

So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback
on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.

I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
system:
> [quote]
> however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
> [/quote]
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
> I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
Chinese and Russian sites).
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
> P
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

OSR_Community_User · June 11, 2007, 8:07pm

I’m just talking about the KMDF source code. I’m in no position to push for public release of all Windows OS sources (not that I can “push” for KMDF source, but at least I’m on the list of people who would need to nod yes.)

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Terhell
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:14 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?

I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and running
some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some other
changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to the judge
at the binary level it was originally created from the same source is not
unimaginable. I don’t know what a non-buildable version of the source
exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does not change
much.

However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
source is going to be too hard for some.

/Daniel

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
>

>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Bill_McKenzie-3 · June 11, 2007, 8:52pm

Oh in that case…I would be more than willing to sign the same documents I
sign for MFC, ATL, and .NET framework source.

Bill M.

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
I’m just talking about the KMDF source code. I’m in no position to push for
public release of all Windows OS sources (not that I can “push” for KMDF
source, but at least I’m on the list of people who would need to nod yes.)

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Terhell
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:14 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Are you talking about complete OS source access or just the KMDF ?

I admit the risk of some company releasing their own Windows distribution
after doing some clever searches and replaces with a text editor and running
some clever obfuscator and doing some tasks out of order and some other
changes in such a way that it will be difficult for MS to prove to the judge
at the binary level it was originally created from the same source is not
unimaginable. I don’t know what a non-buildable version of the source
exactly means, if it just omits the makefiles I think it does not change
much.

However it is hard to imagine what is the potential risk of MS of just
releasing the KMDF source. I heard something like the academic source
license has some reasonable restrictions about posting no more than 50
lines. But I think not being allowed at all to publicly quote from the
source is going to be too hard for some.

/Daniel

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
>

>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

OSR_Community_User · June 11, 2007, 9:17pm

> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS. I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

I don’t think you can consider risk by itself. You have to factor in
the reward to have a meaningful metric. I think it’s more accurate to
say “there are people who think that source access has a very low
risk/reward ratio”. Seems to me the upside for developers having at
least *some* source is huge for everyone involved–including
Microsoft.

Anyway, what risk are you talking about? I honestly have no idea.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

What sort of restrictions are you talking about? Basically, if the
restrictions are financially favorable to time lost slogging through
the OS at assembly level trying to figure out what you’re doing wrong,
then it’s a win. IMO, the restrictions could be pretty high and still
be acceptable–but then again I don’t have a clear idea about what you
have in mind.

OSR_Community_User · June 11, 2007, 9:23pm

Meaning?

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bill McKenzie
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:17 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

I am not even sure you could say that they gave you the opportunity

Bill M.

“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Peter Wieland wrote:
>> So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
>> what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
>> hear too.
>>
>> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
>> I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
>> that there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
>>
>> At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
>> them?
>>
>
> This is a good point. As a DDK MVP, I was offered the opportunity to
> gain access to the source code. I seriously considered it, but after
> reading through the agreement documents, my concerns about
> contamination, and about what I could say and what I couldn’t say, were
> just enough over the comfort line for me that I turned it down. Now, if
> I took some dedicated quiet time and read the documents more carefully,
> I would probably find that my concerns were unfounded, but I’m afraid
> I’d need a lawyer to be 100% sure.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Peter_Viscarola_OSR · June 11, 2007, 11:08pm

David Craig on Windows OS source code access:

The opportunity to get source media is increasingly rare and difficult. For reference and debugging purposes, source code access is provided via network access.

Tim Roberts on Windows Source Code Access Agreements:

And the agreement has changed every year, most dramatically THIS year. This year it changed dramatically and became MUCH more restrictive and onerous.

Peter Wieland on KMDF Source Code Access:

That’s a VERY tough question.

Depends on whether they want to craft the KMDF source code license based on the standard MSFT Source Code Licensing Agreement or on something much more liberal like the SDK license.

For KMDF source, there REALLY shouldn’t be ANY source code license restrictions required. It’s a FRAMEWORK, for goodness sakes. As Bill McKenzie said, what do you sign to get access to MFC sources?

You need to be able to use the source code for reference, debugging, and for community support. So a strict NDA wouldn’t do. I also DO NOT believe a restricton against contributing to another OS would be called for… it’s a FRAMEwork, and seeing how KMDF is implemented over WDM doesn’t really help you say, write KMDF for Linux.

It IS probably reasonable for the agreement to include a prohibition against using undocumented KMDF interfaces or features.

Peter
OSR

Michal_Vodicka-2 · June 11, 2007, 11:26pm

Similarly as others, for KMDF I’d prefer the same restrictions as for
other frameworks i.e. none. However, read-only licence would be also
acceptable.

Just for completeness, for Windows sources similar licence as for WinCE,
would be acceptable, too. With “sensitive” parts removed, too. It is a
bit riduculous as everyone knows there is no security by obscurity but
anyway, as I said, CE sources saved a lot of time for me.

Michal

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289816-
xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Peter Wieland
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:10 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback
on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good
to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to
MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out
that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289772-
xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share.
I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about
source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
> [quote]
> however, doing so with their OS is not in their best interest.
> [/quote]
>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft *believes* it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should
release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it
would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the
Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet
(on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Bill_McKenzie-3 · June 12, 2007, 12:43am

Precisely how is this framework different from MFC, ATL, and .NET…oh
yeah…its kernel code. Okay…sooooooo???

Bill M.

wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> David Craig on Windows OS source code access:
>
>

>
> The opportunity to get source media is increasingly rare and difficult.
> For reference and debugging purposes, source code access is provided via
> network access.
>
> Tim Roberts on Windows Source Code Access Agreements:
>
>

>
> And the agreement has changed every year, most dramatically THIS year.
> This year it changed dramatically and became MUCH more restrictive and
> onerous.
>
> Peter Wieland on KMDF Source Code Access:
>
>

>
> That’s a VERY tough question.
>
> Depends on whether they want to craft the KMDF source code license based
> on the standard MSFT Source Code Licensing Agreement or on something much
> more liberal like the SDK license.
>
> For KMDF source, there REALLY shouldn’t be ANY source code license
> restrictions required. It’s a FRAMEWORK, for goodness sakes. As Bill
> McKenzie said, what do you sign to get access to MFC sources?
>
> You need to be able to use the source code for reference, debugging, and
> for community support. So a strict NDA wouldn’t do. I also DO NOT
> believe a restricton against contributing to another OS would be called
> for… it’s a FRAMEwork, and seeing how KMDF is implemented over WDM
> doesn’t really help you say, write KMDF for Linux.
>
> It IS probably reasonable for the agreement to include a prohibition
> against using undocumented KMDF interfaces or features.
>
> Peter
> OSR
>
>

Prokash_Sinha-1 · June 12, 2007, 1:00am

Honestly, are some of you just after kmdf/umdf ?

Is NDIS a framework or not ?

Is FiltMgr a framework or not ?

Do they deserve to have the same status or not ?

I’m lost now. What the heck is a framework ?

I thing if this proposition has any value then the whole of I/O subsystems
has to be available for ref. and debugging …

-pro

Precisely how is this framework different from MFC, ATL, and .NET…oh
yeah…its kernel code. Okay…sooooooo???

Bill M.

wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> David Craig on Windows OS source code access:
>>
>>

>>
>> The opportunity to get source media is increasingly rare and difficult.
>> For reference and debugging purposes, source code access is provided via
>> network access.
>>
>> Tim Roberts on Windows Source Code Access Agreements:
>>
>>

>>
>> And the agreement has changed every year, most dramatically THIS year.
>> This year it changed dramatically and became MUCH more restrictive and
>> onerous.
>>
>> Peter Wieland on KMDF Source Code Access:
>>
>>

>>
>> That’s a VERY tough question.
>>
>> Depends on whether they want to craft the KMDF source code license based
>> on the standard MSFT Source Code Licensing Agreement or on something
>> much
>> more liberal like the SDK license.
>>
>> For KMDF source, there REALLY shouldn’t be ANY source code license
>> restrictions required. It’s a FRAMEWORK, for goodness sakes. As Bill
>> McKenzie said, what do you sign to get access to MFC sources?
>>
>> You need to be able to use the source code for reference, debugging, and
>> for community support. So a strict NDA wouldn’t do. I also DO NOT
>> believe a restricton against contributing to another OS would be called
>> for… it’s a FRAMEwork, and seeing how KMDF is implemented over WDM
>> doesn’t really help you say, write KMDF for Linux.
>>
>> It IS probably reasonable for the agreement to include a prohibition
>> against using undocumented KMDF interfaces or features.
>>
>> Peter
>> OSR
>>
>>
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

OSR_Community_User · June 12, 2007, 1:34am

Wow. I can almost see the spittle.

It doesn’t matter what risks I say I’m concerned about - it’s clear that they’ll all be dismissed by one of the more vocal list members. I didn’t feel a reason to waste my time explaining something that would just create a new rat-hole about how “silly” or “humorous” the issue might be.

I thought I might still be able to find out what folks find too onerous to sign so that at some hypothetical time in the future when this comes up again with the business and legal folks I might be in a position to provide them some useful feedback about the agreement they would hypothetically require. Like “don’t bother, no one’s going to sign that”. Sorry that was so irritating to you.

So I’ll read between the lines here and put you in the “no restrictions please” bucket.

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bill McKenzie
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:25 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

This is kind of humurous. How, pray tell, would one think MSFT would be in
some bad position by giving out source? I mean really…who is going to
displace you in the operating system arena? The only thing MSFT has to
worry is disruptive technologies. It is EXACTLY akin to IBM in the main
frame days. If it hadn’t been for PCs (a disruptive technology), I dare say
we would still all be buying from Big Blue. No one can compete against
Microsoft with an operating system even if they threw an army of developers
at the problem. Windows isn’t number one because of the cool programming
you guys put into it. It is number one because it has had years to grow
roots.

No, the only risk to Microsoft is PCs not being the machine on everyones’
desktops. Other than that, this is just silly.

The ONLY reason I want source is so that I can make OUR software better on
Microsoft’s operating system. If my software sucks…guess who the end user
blames? Does “Yeah Windows crashes all the time” sound familiar to you?
Okay…don’t give me source…fine.

I tell you what, I would be willing to sign an agreement that my company
would ship our products on Windows operating systems for some reasonable
block of time into the future. How’s that?

Bill M.

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
>

>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Mark_Roddy · June 12, 2007, 6:51am

I agree.

Certainly fltmgr, scsiport, storport, and ndis are ‘frameworks’. Oddly the
existing source access program provides access to all of the above, just not
KMDF.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289856-
xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@garlic.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:59 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Honestly, are some of you just after kmdf/umdf ?

Is NDIS a framework or not ?

Is FiltMgr a framework or not ?

Do they deserve to have the same status or not ?

I’m lost now. What the heck is a framework ?

I thing if this proposition has any value then the whole of I/O
subsystems
has to be available for ref. and debugging …

-pro

> Precisely how is this framework different from MFC, ATL, and
.NET…oh
> yeah…its kernel code. Okay…sooooooo???
>
> Bill M.
>
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >> David Craig on Windows OS source code access:
> >>
> >>

> >>
> >> The opportunity to get source media is increasingly rare and
> difficult.
> >> For reference and debugging purposes, source code access is provided
> via
> >> network access.
> >>
> >> Tim Roberts on Windows Source Code Access Agreements:
> >>
> >>

> >>
> >> And the agreement has changed every year, most dramatically THIS
> year.
> >> This year it changed dramatically and became MUCH more restrictive
> and
> >> onerous.
> >>
> >> Peter Wieland on KMDF Source Code Access:
> >>
> >>

> >>
> >> That’s a VERY tough question.
> >>
> >> Depends on whether they want to craft the KMDF source code license
> based
> >> on the standard MSFT Source Code Licensing Agreement or on something
> >> much
> >> more liberal like the SDK license.
> >>
> >> For KMDF source, there REALLY shouldn’t be ANY source code license
> >> restrictions required. It’s a FRAMEWORK, for goodness sakes. As
> Bill
> >> McKenzie said, what do you sign to get access to MFC sources?
> >>
> >> You need to be able to use the source code for reference, debugging,
> and
> >> for community support. So a strict NDA wouldn’t do. I also DO NOT
> >> believe a restricton against contributing to another OS would be
> called
> >> for… it’s a FRAMEwork, and seeing how KMDF is implemented over WDM
> >> doesn’t really help you say, write KMDF for Linux.
> >>
> >> It IS probably reasonable for the agreement to include a prohibition
> >> against using undocumented KMDF interfaces or features.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >> OSR
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >
> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
> >
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

OSR_Community_User · June 12, 2007, 7:03am

How can one join the NDIS source access program?

Thanks
Tzachi

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark Roddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:47 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

I agree.

Certainly fltmgr, scsiport, storport, and ndis are
‘frameworks’. Oddly the existing source access program
provides access to all of the above, just not KMDF.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289856-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@garlic.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:59 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Honestly, are some of you just after kmdf/umdf ?
>
> Is NDIS a framework or not ?
>
> Is FiltMgr a framework or not ?
>
> Do they deserve to have the same status or not ?
>
> I’m lost now. What the heck is a framework ?
>
> I thing if this proposition has any value then the whole of I/O
> subsystems has to be available for ref. and debugging …
>
>
> -pro
>
>
>
> > Precisely how is this framework different from MFC, ATL, and
> .NET…oh
> > yeah…its kernel code. Okay…sooooooo???
> >
> > Bill M.
> >
> > wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> > >> David Craig on Windows OS source code access:
> > >>
> > >>

> > >>
> > >> The opportunity to get source media is increasingly rare and
> > difficult.
> > >> For reference and debugging purposes, source code access is
> > >> provided
> > via
> > >> network access.
> > >>
> > >> Tim Roberts on Windows Source Code Access Agreements:
> > >>
> > >>

> > >>
> > >> And the agreement has changed every year, most dramatically THIS
> > year.
> > >> This year it changed dramatically and became MUCH more
> restrictive
> > and
> > >> onerous.
> > >>
> > >> Peter Wieland on KMDF Source Code Access:
> > >>
> > >>

> > >>
> > >> That’s a VERY tough question.
> > >>
> > >> Depends on whether they want to craft the KMDF source
> code license
> > based
> > >> on the standard MSFT Source Code Licensing Agreement or on
> > >> something much more liberal like the SDK license.
> > >>
> > >> For KMDF source, there REALLY shouldn’t be ANY source
> code license
> > >> restrictions required. It’s a FRAMEWORK, for goodness sakes. As
> > Bill
> > >> McKenzie said, what do you sign to get access to MFC sources?
> > >>
> > >> You need to be able to use the source code for reference,
> > >> debugging,
> > and
> > >> for community support. So a strict NDA wouldn’t do. I
> also DO NOT
> > >> believe a restricton against contributing to another OS would be
> > called
> > >> for… it’s a FRAMEwork, and seeing how KMDF is implemented over
> > >> WDM doesn’t really help you say, write KMDF for Linux.
> > >>
> > >> It IS probably reasonable for the agreement to include a
> > >> prohibition against using undocumented KMDF interfaces
> or features.
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >> OSR
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> > > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> > > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> > http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
> >
> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online
> at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

David_R_Cattley · June 12, 2007, 7:58am

Peter,

A restriction on redistribution in whole or in part of the ‘source’ work.
A restriction prohibiting the distribution of binary derivatives other
than those permitted by the KMDF (WDK) license. In other words, you can
only *use* the support driver DDI *as is*.
A sticker to place on my monitor with the words “Luke, Don’t Use The
Source”.

Some things that would probably not fly would be an NDA that restricts
anything other than ‘disclosure’ of the actual Source Code to a third party.
I think it would be of benefit to allow *discussion* of the derived
knowledge from the Source without requiring the recipient to become party to
the agreement. This is exactly what happens when you, Robert, and Doron do
that great service to this community of explaining what is going on in KMDF
in terms of its implementation.

I am sure there are plenty of other ‘restrictions’ the suits can come up
with that utltimately make them feel happy and don’t practically effect the
vast majority of developers but would raise the hackles of some on the list
(and for good reason).

My test is to ask “does this prevent me in any way from doing my job now or
in the future.” If the answer is yes, then I generally don’t sign it. So
things like “thou shalt not write code in Teco” are ok but “thou shalt not
write drivers for xxxx” are not.

And of course, if MSFT has any patent claims to make derivative or
supportive of the work on KMDF, UMDF, or any thing else related to how one
might interact with the NT I/O subsystem, they should get them filed so that
someone evaluating the ‘polution’ potential can be informed.

Thanks for soliciting the feedback.

Regards,
-dave

David R. Cattley
Consulting Engineer
Systems Software Development

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Peter Wieland
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:33 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Wow. I can almost see the spittle.

It doesn’t matter what risks I say I’m concerned about - it’s clear that
they’ll all be dismissed by one of the more vocal list members. I didn’t
feel a reason to waste my time explaining something that would just create a
new rat-hole about how “silly” or “humorous” the issue might be.

I thought I might still be able to find out what folks find too onerous to
sign so that at some hypothetical time in the future when this comes up
again with the business and legal folks I might be in a position to provide
them some useful feedback about the agreement they would hypothetically
require. Like “don’t bother, no one’s going to sign that”. Sorry that was
so irritating to you.

So I’ll read between the lines here and put you in the “no restrictions
please” bucket.

-p

Prokash_Sinha-1 · June 12, 2007, 9:19am

I don’t think this should block you anyway to give different options to
the community ( well of course to the point what is/are available and
suitable to let the community know …).

This topic is neither humorous nor rediculous as some people stated here :(.

-pro

Wow. I can almost see the spittle.

It doesn’t matter what risks I say I’m concerned about - it’s clear that
they’ll all be dismissed by one of the more vocal list members. I didn’t
feel a reason to waste my time explaining something that would just create
a new rat-hole about how “silly” or “humorous” the issue might be.

I thought I might still be able to find out what folks find too onerous to
sign so that at some hypothetical time in the future when this comes up
again with the business and legal folks I might be in a position to
provide them some useful feedback about the agreement they would
hypothetically require. Like “don’t bother, no one’s going to sign that”.
Sorry that was so irritating to you.

So I’ll read between the lines here and put you in the “no restrictions
please” bucket.

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bill McKenzie
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:25 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

This is kind of humurous. How, pray tell, would one think MSFT would be
in
some bad position by giving out source? I mean really…who is going to
displace you in the operating system arena? The only thing MSFT has to
worry is disruptive technologies. It is EXACTLY akin to IBM in the main
frame days. If it hadn’t been for PCs (a disruptive technology), I dare
say
we would still all be buying from Big Blue. No one can compete against
Microsoft with an operating system even if they threw an army of
developers
at the problem. Windows isn’t number one because of the cool programming
you guys put into it. It is number one because it has had years to grow
roots.

No, the only risk to Microsoft is PCs not being the machine on everyones’
desktops. Other than that, this is just silly.

The ONLY reason I want source is so that I can make OUR software better on
Microsoft’s operating system. If my software sucks…guess who the end
user
blames? Does “Yeah Windows crashes all the time” sound familiar to you?
Okay…don’t give me source…fine.

I tell you what, I would be willing to sign an agreement that my company
would ship our products on Windows operating systems for some reasonable
block of time into the future. How’s that?

Bill M.

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
> what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
> hear too.
>
> Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
> I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
> there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.
>
> At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept
> them?
>
> -p
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
> emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
> what happened? Nothing noticeable.
>
> MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
> necessary power realizes it.
>
> Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
> code. I’m looking forward for it
>
> Michal
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
>> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
>> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>>
>> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
>> system:
>>
>>

>>
>> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>>
>> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
>> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
> a
>> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
> be,
>> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
> OS
>> widely available.
>>
>> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
> Whatever.
>> Those people get what they deserve.
>>
>> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
> those
>> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>>
>> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
> code?
>> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
>> Chinese and Russian sites).
>>
>> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
> code
>> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
> well
>> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
> The
>> good feelings among the community members.
>>
>> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
> could
>> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
> for
>> guidance.
>>
>> P
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

Bill_McKenzie-3 · June 12, 2007, 10:03am

Yeah, I am a little irritated. Sorry I tend to come off stronger than I
intend though. I guess what really irritates me is intent. I *thought* the
intent of the framework was to make 3rd party drivers better, not come up
with some new product. Again, the MFC, ATL, and .NET framework folks seem
to get it…what is different here? Did you guys code to some super secret
back doors in the kernel that we just can’t be privvy too? Yes, I am a
little irritated that we are even having this discussion. This source
should be, and should have always been, handed out with the sample WDK
source. And as long as it isn’t, I hope, just a hope mind you, I don’t hear
one more statement from MSFT about the quality of third party drivers.

Bill M.

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
Wow. I can almost see the spittle.

It doesn’t matter what risks I say I’m concerned about - it’s clear that
they’ll all be dismissed by one of the more vocal list members. I didn’t
feel a reason to waste my time explaining something that would just create a
new rat-hole about how “silly” or “humorous” the issue might be.

I thought I might still be able to find out what folks find too onerous to
sign so that at some hypothetical time in the future when this comes up
again with the business and legal folks I might be in a position to provide
them some useful feedback about the agreement they would hypothetically
require. Like “don’t bother, no one’s going to sign that”. Sorry that was
so irritating to you.

So I’ll read between the lines here and put you in the “no restrictions
please” bucket.

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bill McKenzie
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:25 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

This is kind of humurous. How, pray tell, would one think MSFT would be in
some bad position by giving out source? I mean really…who is going to
displace you in the operating system arena? The only thing MSFT has to
worry is disruptive technologies. It is EXACTLY akin to IBM in the main
frame days. If it hadn’t been for PCs (a disruptive technology), I dare say
we would still all be buying from Big Blue. No one can compete against
Microsoft with an operating system even if they threw an army of developers
at the problem. Windows isn’t number one because of the cool programming
you guys put into it. It is number one because it has had years to grow
roots.

No, the only risk to Microsoft is PCs not being the machine on everyones’
desktops. Other than that, this is just silly.

The ONLY reason I want source is so that I can make OUR software better on
Microsoft’s operating system. If my software sucks…guess who the end user
blames? Does “Yeah Windows crashes all the time” sound familiar to you?
Okay…don’t give me source…fine.

I tell you what, I would be willing to sign an agreement that my company
would ship our products on Windows operating systems for some reasonable
block of time into the future. How’s that?

Bill M.

“Peter Wieland” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
So while everyone is pondering this if you could provide some feedback on
what you’d be willing to sign to get source access that would be good to
hear too.

Clearly there are people who think that source access has no risk to MS.
I’d personally disagree, and so I assume that if we do put access out that
there will be some restrictions you have to agree to first.

At what point would restrictions become too onerous for you to accept them?

-p

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?

Thanks, Peter, for clearly expressing this standpoint which I share. I’d
emphasize: part of Windows sources already leaked some time before and
what happened? Nothing noticeable.

MS can’t lose anything, just gain. Now only if some open mind with
necessary power realizes it.

Well, I guess you have enough material for a Pontification about source
code. I’m looking forward for it

Michal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:bounce-289760-
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] What ABOUT KMDF Source Code?
>
> Mr. Cleary wrote, on releasing source code to the Windows operating
> system:
>
>

>
> Do you really believe this? I don’t and never have.
>
> I know that Microsoft believes it is not in their best interest to
> release the Windows OS source code. I don’t think they should release
a
> BUILDABLE version of the Windows OS Source Code. But I think it would
be,
> entirely, in their best interests to make the sources for the Windows
OS
> widely available.
>
> Sure… some assholes would use a lot of undocumented stuff.
Whatever.
> Those people get what they deserve.
>
> Sure… some other jerks will exploit security loopholes… Guess
those
> loopholes will get found and filled quickly, huh??
>
> But, seriously, what HARM could come of releasing the Windows source
code?
> Note that there’s a TON of it is already avaiable on the internet (on
> Chinese and Russian sites).
>
> If I were “King for a Day” at Microsoft, I’d release the OS source
code
> for the I/O Subsystem at the VERY LEAST. The code is surprisingly
well
> written (mostly). Imagine the positive press this would engender.
The
> good feelings among the community members.
>
> And now when you got back STATUS_BLAH from IoSomeRandomFunction you
could
> LOOK IT UP and be on your way, instead of praying to a random diety
for
> guidance.
>
> P
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Maxim_S_Shatskih · June 12, 2007, 3:25pm

> buildable, so that those who are debugging can see it in action. Give some

one 100+ thousands line of codes in static form ( so that they can not
build), you will see the interest levels drops. For me it is absolutely

No. The source is usually needed for “let’s look how this particular tiny
feature is implemented by them”. This does not mean reading megabytes of code.

–
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com