Windows xp's leaked code is compiled.... and video of compiling taken down

[pm128]

Summary

 Windows XP's code that was leaked on 4chan was compiled by YouTube user NTDEV.  code was incomplete (things like drivers were missing), but NTDEV managed to compile it. NTDEVs video later got taken down and he privatised his Twitter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IyW-bwGQTQ). There is still a lot of videos with theme of compiling XP left untouched.

 

Quotes

Quote

 "Well, the reports were indeed true. It seems that there are some components missing, such as winlogon.exe and lots of drivers" said NTDEV

 

My thoughts

Microsoft was a bit greedy here. There is still a reason for that, ofc, with main one being the fact that code was copyrighted by Microsoft.

 

 

 

 

Sources

https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-xp-leak-confirmed-after-user-compiles-the-leaked-code-into-a-working-os/

https://mobile.twitter.com/NTDEV_/status/1311030848632885248

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by pm128

[DavidKalinowski]

At this point I wish MS would just opensource the windows XP code and let community have at it.

 

(I have a theory that in the 5 years or so, MS will buy canonical and windows will simply be a linux distro that you have to pay a monthly/yearly fee to get secuirty updates and support for. the same way redhat does it)

[pm128]

There are still reasons to have ntfs OS... A lot of reasons

[Delicieuxz]

Awesome! I hope that it can and will serve as foundation for an ongoing community project to create a usable modern and secure alternative to Windows 10, at least for some things.

[DavidKalinowski]

4 minutes ago, pm128 said:

There are still reasons to have ntfs OS... A lot of reasons

I mean, linux can read and write NTFS

 

[LAwLz]

Holy shit that is a major accomplishment.

There are still some issues left with the build according to the guide I found (not sure if I am allowed to post it) but this confirms that the source is legitimate and can now be used for other stuff.

[Delicieuxz]

NTDEV has made their Twitter account private, and a YouTube video they uploaded about compiling the XP source code has been removed after a copyright claim by Microsoft.

 

https://twitter.com/NTDEV_/status/1311030848632885248

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IyW-bwGQTQ

 

NTDev's YT page: https://www.youtube.com/c/NTDEV/videos

 

There's another video on YT showing the source code for Windows Server 2003 and XP compiling.

 

 

 

[WereCatf]

44 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Awesome! I hope that it can and will serve as foundation for an ongoing community project to create a usable modern and secure alternative to Windows 10, at least for some things.

Not possible. The code is copyrighted, so using it for any project would taint the project and be a copyright-violation.

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Not possible. The code is copyrighted, so using it for any project would taint the project and be a copyright-violation.

Yeah, Microsoft would do what they could to stop usage of their code. But just like how people sharing the code is a copyright violation but it gets shared anyway, I'm presuming there might be ways to develop a project in spite of Microsoft's opposition.

[Doobeedoo]

Cool. Though yeah very old OS by far now still anyway.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Yeah, Microsoft would do what they could to stop usage of their code. But just like how people sharing the code is a copyright violation but it gets shared anyway, I'm presuming there might be ways to develop a project in spite of Microsoft's opposition.

Of course, if you are willing to knowingly be in violation of copyright-laws.

[LAwLz]

I wonder what the legality of creating patches for XP would be, if the patches were developed using this source code.

For example someone discovering a vulnerability in Windows XP, looking at the source code, writing a program that injects some code into the vulnerable program/library and then distributing it.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Of course, if you are willing to knowingly be in violation of copyright-laws.

Of course, many people are OK with that - evidenced by the reported millions who have downloaded and / or shared the source files. And there are many non-sanctioned actions that people do online, enabled by anonymization.

 

But, as LAwLz brings attention to, it's possible to develop without distributing the source code or the OS itself. With the source code, it might be possible to develop patches that apply to an existing Windows XP ISO to transform it into something else, and so run a community development project that way. The development of a project could assume that contributing developers have the source code without distributing the source code to them - or, so I'm presuming.

[CTR640]

If NTDEV would add DirectX12 to their compiled version of XP, that would be great.

[RejZoR]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Yeah, Microsoft would do what they could to stop usage of their code. But just like how people sharing the code is a copyright violation but it gets shared anyway, I'm presuming there might be ways to develop a project in spite of Microsoft's opposition.

Technically that's ReactOS, but for some reason MS doesn't have an issue with it. It's technically reverse engineered OS based on Windows. It's probably too basic and to limited for MS to really care.

[RejZoR]

12 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Of course, many people are OK with that - evidenced by the reported millions who have downloaded and / or shared the source files. And there are many non-sanctioned actions that people do online, enabled by anonymization.

 

But, as LAwLz brings attention to, it's possible to develop without distributing the source code or the OS itself. With the source code, it might be possible to develop patches that apply to an existing Windows XP ISO to transform it into something else, and so run a community development project that way. The development of a project could assume that contributing developers have the source code without distributing the source code to them - or, so I'm presuming.

Sure, for personal use, do whatever you want. But as soon as you start distributing the binaries based on said stuff, you'll have MS lawyers on your neck.

[Parideboy]

29 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Not possible. The code is copyrighted, so using it for any project would taint the project and be a copyright-violation.

The code can be looked up and rewritten from scratch, that's basically what ReactOS does.

[WereCatf]

Just now, Parideboy said:

The code can be looked up and rewritten from scratch, that's basically what ReactOS does.

No, they are looking at the API and descriptions, not the actual code. Looking at the code and reimplementing it would be a copyright-violation.

[pm128]

Imagine copyrighting a video looking at 19 year old os's source code.

[Delicieuxz]

50 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Technically that's ReactOS, but for some reason MS doesn't have an issue with it. It's technically reverse engineered OS based on Windows. It's probably too basic and to limited for MS to really care.

As ReactOS is a reverse-engineering project, it doesn't violate Microsoft's copyrights. So long as they are making and distributing their own code and not Microsoft's, they're in the clear.

 

Community projects made possible by having access to Windows XP's source code also don't have to distribute Microsoft's code - they can distribute their own code that is to be applied to Windows XP. The question is, can community work that doesn't distribute Microsoft's code be effective at transforming XP into a modern-esque OS? Or, if a project does distribute Microsoft's code, can its contributors operate anonymously and with hosting that can't be threatened by Microsoft?

[pm128]

30 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

As ReactOS is a reverse-engineering project, it doesn't violate Microsoft's copyrights. So long as they are making and distributing their own code and not Microsoft's, they're in the clear.

 

Community projects made possible by having access to Windows XP's source code also don't have to distribute Microsoft's code. The question is, can community work that doesn't distribute Microsoft's code be effective at transforming XP into a modern-esque OS? Or, if a project does distribute Microsoft's code, can its contributors operate anonymously and with hosting that can't be threatened by Microsoft?

Exactly

[Helpful Tech Witch]

I wonder if anyone is working on a full recompilation with the scource code. 

[RejZoR]

53 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

No, they are looking at the API and descriptions, not the actual code. Looking at the code and reimplementing it would be a copyright-violation.

In theory. In practice, you can make car wheel only that much different from the patented one held by company X. If something requires a specific line of code, you can say you made it up yoursel for was copy pasted from MS's source, it won't matter, the code will be the same or similar enough.

[WereCatf]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

In theory. In practice, you can make car wheel only that much different from the patented one held by company X. If something requires a specific line of code, you can say you made it up yoursel for was copy pasted from MS's source, it won't matter, the code will be the same or similar enough.

You'd be surprised by how many functions in Win32 have undocumented functionality and bugs and how much trouble that causes for e.g. ReactOS-devs.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

Community projects made possible by having access to Windows XP's source code also don't have to distribute Microsoft's code - they can distribute their own code that is to be applied to Windows XP. The question is, can community work that doesn't distribute Microsoft's code be effective at transforming XP into a modern-esque OS? Or, if a project does distribute Microsoft's code, can its contributors operate anonymously and with hosting that can't be threatened by Microsoft?

That's not how the copyright system works.  If you base your source code off of the original work you will get in legal trouble.  Things such as WINE are very careful to keep the de compiling/documenting people separate from the implementors.  Imagine a movie analogy; I could rebuild a movie shot for shot and def. would get sued for copyright infringement (you are deriving the work).  If I only had a description of what the movie was and made the movie, it would require a lot more legal footwork to win in a suit.  (Which is why places like WINE go that route...what they do may still potentially fall on copyright, but it would be marred with a bunch of extra work proving so...and that's assuming they were successful)

 

29 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

In theory. In practice, you can make car wheel only that much different from the patented one held by company X. If something requires a specific line of code, you can say you made it up yoursel for was copy pasted from MS's source, it won't matter, the code will be the same or similar enough.

In practice all MS would have to do is show you looked at the source to determine how to write your source.  (As a note, patents aren't a great example, given that if a company successfully patents an idea even if there isn't any other way of doing it they still hold the patent and could sue).

 

In practice, it would be about what steps an individual took to implement something to avoid copying a work.  By decompiling and documenting an API, and having another team write the work but ending up with the same code is drastically different than seeing the source and rewriting it only to discover you can only implement it one way.  In the first case it's possible to say that the code written wasn't copied but rather a result of it being the most logical way to program it...in the latter case it's copying work and claiming there wasn't any other way (but it's still copied)