So just because some internal symbols have been leaked (or even have been published by MS in symbols tables) you can copy them legally ? But somehow you can't c

So just because some internal symbols have been leaked (or even have been published by MS in symbols tables) you can copy them legally ? But somehow you can't copy the source code ? But however you can copy a hand (or tool assisted) disassembly and even copy the symbols on top of that ??? Why ? What kind of crazy interpretation of copyright law is that ? (And this is tremendously clear at least something like that has been done for some key parts, and some of the people even told the world they believe this was OK because they did it basically like that...). And oh, maybe in some jurisdiction you actually can, but I would like to have the list. And in the US, especially after Oracle vs. Google I would be astonished to learn that this is actually legal, and I would actually already have been astonished to learn this is legal even before Oracle vs. Google. Win 2k and NT4 sources have had a very very wide circulation for a long time. Probably there was no source copy directly at source level because they magically audited their codebase, somehow, and told us that this did not happen, BUT it at least means that it's easy for anybody not wanting to take the handwaving at face value to directly do a comparison themselves. And no magical process is going to produce virtually the same functions, including the internals, suddenly not a copyright violation, because of some random wishful thinking about how if you copy with some crazy extra steps and a cute little magical dance in the middle it becomes suddenly ok in the eye of the law. Maybe that idea would make lawyers laugh hysterically while randomly saying "AFC test", but I'm not it would have any other effect. Just take the two trees and diff key functions and see by yourself. There is no way to justify it can't be reimplemented differently to implement even the same specification. Would MS want to destroy that project, I believe they would be able to do it, effortlessly, in a court. But I suspect it is not worth the potential PR backslash given how the narrative is already set that it is "clean", and the high number of free software enthusiasts believing it blindly for years without even checking by themselves.