Microsoft Research does some really cool stuff. Do they really work for the same company as the people who make Windows and Office? I can't imagine two more diametrically different organizations.
I think it is hard to top what AT&T did with Bell Labs. They had a government mandated monopoly with tons of money to fund basic scientific research and ended up with a few Nobel prizes in the process. I think the more apt organization for the OP however would be Xerox PARC.
are you privy to research in either of the organizations. I know its great to revere age old organizations but as we are speaking the best research is probably being conducted in a place we least expect. I am not privy to research at Ma Bell or only the published elements of Microsoft Research - so your reaction is more of an instinct than any factual basis.
Bell Lab's results are widely known. I'll just point to two: C and the Transistor, as being pretty hard to beat (there's much more).
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.
My broad point was comparing an age old institution with Young one is not fair and more or less 100 years from now, who knows where things would be are.
Its not comparing apples to apples but again, if dissing MSR for not being Bell Labs - great then.
My point it is there can never be a Bell Labs again. Very few organizations have the resources to fund basic sciences and have all the talent they had under one roof.
It's sometimes hard to believe, but our current laws seems to allow that you can be forbidden from modifying a piece of software even for your own personal use.
Um, no. You have to publish or perform it publicly to be infringing. If you sign it at home, or record yourself singing it at home, or record a copy of the original at home, you're still not infringing as long as you don't attempt to distribute it.
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.
I think where it would come into legal question is a situation more like "modifying our software, running the modified version on a server, and making a profit from the service that server provides." In other words, modifying for commercial use.
Since when do you need a license to modify something for your own personal use? If they've given me access to the source, I can just start editing to my heart's content...
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...
If it were to avoid a patent infringement then it could still be considered contributory infringement - ie you [knowingly] provided the necessary parts, methods, information that enables someone else to perform the infringement.
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.
If you paid for a license to something and they provide the source with purchase, but don't want the source shared or modifications to it shared either.
In reality, if redistribution of source is forbidden, restricting unreleased modifications of source is hard to enforce.
Yes, Yes, No.