sticky
Source Code

    Question

  • Some of the source code used to be available.
     
    Why isn't all the source code available, so people could read, learn and reuse to make useful software for Windows?
     
    Or is it - somewhere I just didn't find?
     
     
    Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:29 AM

All replies

  • Hello, hoegge,

    this question has been asked more than once before and answered as well.
    Using the forum search function and looking for the term "source code" revealed among lots of other threads this one: Source code for sysinternals tools.

    The statement referenced in that thread and given here, Sysinternals Site Migration (2006), will still apply:
    Source Code: The number of source code downloads didn’t justify the migration, support, and possible integration problems it might cause with other Windows components down the road.

    Also this statement inside the Sysinternals Licensing FAQ will answer your question:
    Q: Can I license or re-use any Sysinternals source code?

    A:
    No. We will no longer offer the Sysinternals source code for download or license.

    About the why in your question: I cannot tell you more than I quoted. The programme authors / Microsoft are free to publish or not to publish their source codes just like any other programme authour.

    Regards,
    Karl
    --
    <added>
    Made this thread sticky inside the "Miscellaneous" forum, so the question and the answer can be found more easily, because the thread will not drop down the list in the course of time.
    </added>
    Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:44 AM
  • Since Mark, Bryce and the sysinternals name was bought by Microsoft 2 years ago their source code which use to be available is not anymore.
    If you're lucky web.archive.org may have some files for download (use XP to unzip).

    Richard S.
    Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:51 AM
  • Thanks - still think they should publish it for educational use. The versions you can download runs on Windows, and therefore the source code can also be compiled. They should just offer it "as is" - people understand and respect that.
     
    Wrong choice
    Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:16 AM
  • They did this mostly because source code of FileMon/RegMon were used in malware purposes.
    Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:23 AM


  • Hi,

    Not being an open-source fascist and respecting
    Microsoft's right to do what they see fit with
    their own property, I would still have to say
    that the fact that code was used
    for illegitimate purposes is pretty lame.

    I could argue that sugar, fertiliser and petrol
    (gas for Americans) can be used in explosive
    devices - "take them off the shelves!" - I
    don't think so.

    Just a thought.


    Rgs.


    Paul...

    Monday, July 21, 2008 11:20 AM
  • Hi, Paul.

    Kindly don't use terms you don't understand: open source and fascism are totally unrelated.
    I am a great open source fan, but that does not make me a fascist.

    Karl
    Monday, July 21, 2008 3:25 PM


  • > Kindly don't use terms you don't understand:
    > open source and fascism are totally unrelated.


    Not really - there are those who appear to think
    that the *_only_* valid software development model
    is open source and actively excoriate those who
    think differently - and equate closed source
    software with loose morals and the imminent
    collapse of society as we know it.


    > I am a great open source fan, but that does
    > not make me a fascist.

    Of course not, and I used the term a wee bit
    "tongue in cheek". I'm actually a fan myself,
    but I also strongly believe in the rights
    of the holder(s) of IP to excersise those
    rights in any way they choose.

    BTW, just because you don't like what I wrote does
    *_not_* mean that I don't understand the terms.


    Rgs.


    Paul...

    Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:14 PM
  • Hi, Paul.
    BTW, just because you don't like what I wrote does
    *_not_* mean that I don't understand the terms.
    Agreed. It is the way how you use the term fascist which suggests you may not be aware what a fascist is. An expression like "open source fanatic" might have been more appropriate or maybe "open source extremist" ...

    Karl
    --
    P.S.:
    I will stop here, because I do not wish to hijack this thread about the availability of Sysinternals source codes and turn it into a discussion about the nature of fascism. (Wrong place.)


    Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:48 PM


  • Agreed - I was going to add more or less the
    same thing - we could go to alt.open-source.advocacy
    if we wished to pursue this, but I think your
    suggestion of the word "fanatic" is probably
    less "offensive", though as I said, it was not
    meant to be taken literally.

    Rgs. Over and out (on this topic anyway).

    Paul...

    Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:33 AM
  • Note: moved abhay.joshi's post into its own topic:
    Find opened files
    Friday, January 16, 2009 8:09 AM