HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
historicalsource
zork1
ZIL2019–2026
historicalsource / zork1

zork1

Zork I (Microcomputer Version) by Infocom

10Distinct people
10Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Zork I (Microcomputer Version) by Infocom

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year10 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2019-04-16 15:13:59 UTC to 2026-05-25 14:20:14 UTC.

012342019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

10 sources
The source code Scott & co. released is word-for-word exactly the same as the pirated source code that's been floating around the Internet since at least 2009, and that pagetable.com wrote about in 2018: https://www.pagetable.com/?p=774 This is what Microsoft slapped a license and an AI-slop README on. Sure, they can legally do that, they still own the copyright, but it's still pretty funny that they're essentially laundering pirated software. The Zork I/II/III releases were even more blatant, with git commits adding license texts to existing pirate (or, if you prefer, archival) releases of the old source code: https://github.com/historicalsource/zork1 https://github.com/historicalsource/zork2 https://github.com/historicalsource/zork3 It makes me wonder how many of Microsoft's other releases of old source code are laundered pirate release
Read the rest
s, but I don't want to be too harsh. Microsoft's actions in these cases are considerably nicer than, say, what Warner Bros. did about pirated Mortal Kombat 2 source code (takedown), or Nintendo's continued legal hostility toward everyone everywhere. Maybe other companies could learn not to be so dog-in-the-manger about their precious Intellectual Property.
In Microsoft's 6502 BASIC is now Open Source (2025)
The writing should be assumed to be subject to copyright still even though the code is open source. In this case it sounds like Microsoft's Legal has taken the assumption the writing is applicable under the code license and is mostly seeking to enforce trademarks and brand (don't commercially release something implying it is a Microsoft-approved Zork) more than the writing, per Scott's wording of Microsoft's legal requests here: https://github.com/historicalsource/zork1/pull/3 Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, that's not legal advice, build commercial derivatives at your own risk and with your own lawyer's advice.
In Microsoft makes Zork open-source

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.