Internal device Windows Japanese University

[lastar]

Found online resource about the internals of Windows on the Japanese page of University there pdf documents ( in English )

http://i-web.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp/edu/training/ss/lecture/

http://i-web.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp/edu/traini ... index.html

these are two links to pages with pdf files

[Konata]

Seems pretty cool. I only see four documents that are actually useful, everything else is just slides. And even then, the four useful documents are really cursory knowledge, more of a generalization than actually going into any depth on any particular subject. Still, thanks for sharing.

[middings]

Still can't beat the Windows Internals books, apparently.

[manuel]

this information is legal (Japanese university)?

[hbelusca]

this information is legal (Japanese university)?

As you might have guessed, this comes from the Windows Research Kernel initiative which offers to eligible people only material about the internals of the Windows 2003 kernel (x86 & x64) and most of its source code, together with code examples. You need to be an IT student or professor; this is licensed material and as such this cannot be used for developing ReactOS in a legal way, and if you've seen it, you must refrain from contributing to ReactOS kernel code at all.

[Aeneas]

... and dragons and monsters will haunt you and darken your life for ever and ever ...

Alright: I beg to differ.

What contributions ReactOS accepts, I leave to ReactOS, naturally.

But if information has become public through not obviously unlawful channels, it can no longer be deemed "secret". And while might not have "distribution rights" to it, one certainly is permitted to refer to it - for if one were not, the publisher should have refrained from publishing it in the first place. A (Japanese) university is a reputable source. I see no reason to assume they will post unlawful material. Moreover, if they wished to limit the circle of recipients, with minimal technical efforts they would have done so. Their relationship to MS is of no concern to OTHERS. Whatever their license arrangements, this is THEIR agreement (and it is, indeed, unknown to me). So WHY should one not be allowed to "look at it"?

And at least in Europe, intellectual property law protects the "expression in code" of a program at best; and does NOT protect its concepts, ideas, or indeed, even functionality.

To decrease the panic a little (at least from a European perspective), I recommend this:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d ... doclang=EN

But that, of course, is just my own personal opinion.

[manuel]

this information is legal (Japanese university)?

As you might have guessed, this comes from the Windows Research Kernel initiative which offers to eligible people only material about the internals of the Windows 2003 kernel (x86 & x64) and most of its source code, together with code examples. You need to be an IT student or professor; this is licensed material and as such this cannot be used for developing ReactOS in a legal way, and if you've seen it, you must refrain from contributing to ReactOS kernel code at all.

ok, other words "this not work", right?

[hbelusca]

... and dragons and monsters will haunt you and darken your life for ever and ever ...

Alright: I beg to differ.

What contributions ReactOS accepts, I leave to ReactOS, naturally.

But if information has become public through not obviously unlawful channels, it can no longer be deemed "secret". And while might not have "distribution rights" to it, one certainly is permitted to refer to it - for if one were not, the publisher should have refrained from publishing it in the first place. A (Japanese) university is a reputable source. I see no reason to assume they will post unlawful material. Moreover, if they wished to limit the circle of recipients, with minimal technical efforts they would have done so. Their relationship to MS is of no concern to OTHERS. Whatever their license arrangements, this is THEIR agreement (and it is, indeed, unknown to me). So WHY should one not be allowed to "look at it"?

And at least in Europe, intellectual property law protects the "expression in code" of a program at best; and does NOT protect its concepts, ideas, or indeed, even functionality.

To decrease the panic a little (at least from a European perspective), I recommend this:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d ... doclang=EN

But that, of course, is just my own personal opinion.

ok, other words "this not work", right?

All that stuff was already discussed on these forum threads:
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 18#p118118 (point 3)
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 37#p107272 and the answers below.

[middings]

I'm sure the ReactOS project leaders understand your point, Aeneas. However, avoiding the near occasion of offense to Microsoft is easier than the effort and expense of fending off Microsoft in court. There is a saying in the United States, "The process is the punishment," meaning that a government bureaucracy can cause one much grief, expense, and loss of time for years and years even if one is found completely blameless and innocent after the whole legal process is over. Microsoft with its deep pockets and lawyers is also able to similarly tie up those whom Microsoft believes have given offense. (See also Kafka, Franz.)

An everyday analogy: While driving a car, better to avoid a collision than to argue later with another driver in court.

[PurpleGurl]

I'm sure the ReactOS project leaders understand your point, Aeneas. However, avoiding the near occasion of offense to Microsoft is easier than the effort and expense of fending off Microsoft in court. There is a saying in the United States, "The process is the punishment," meaning that a government bureaucracy can cause one much grief, expense, and loss of time for years and years even if one is found completely blameless and innocent after the whole legal process is over. Microsoft with its deep pockets and lawyers is also able to similarly tie up those whom Microsoft believes have given offense. (See also Kafka, Franz.)

An everyday analogy: While driving a car, better to avoid a collision than to argue later with another driver in court.

There are a number of analogies, sayings, and principles we could apply here.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
"It's better to be alive than to have the right of way."
"It's better to give the right of way to a driver who is wrong than to be dead right."

As long as it has taken to get this far with ROS, we'd hate to have to lose all this work due to some legal sloppiness or corner-cutting on our part. And the way the world is litigation-happy, everyone should strive to be blameless and righteous in everything they do.