Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

1 participants
5793 discussions

RE: [ros-dev] Re: Copyright notices
by Murphy, Ged (Bolton) 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

K McI wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Completely off topic, but a request: > > When you're quoting someone (anyone) who signed/encrypted > their message, can you ax the "----- $% BEGIN PGP SIGNED > MESSAGE $% -----" line, so ppls GPGPs don't wonder where the > sign block is? > > I know I'm like, the only one here who does it, but I wanted > to let everyone know, not just for this list. > > Thanx again > > -uQ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFCwolc7mze81O92HkRAvyEAJwK6TLtoISfHFY4L+/7Y5o6pdyb1wCdFs1n > PXsFokONZ4q4DydcS8j1s9Q= > =Asvj > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Or even better, could you not turn the PGP sig off for the mailing list? It does make reading your mails a little more complicated than need be. You could always link your public key to a key server in a quick signature if you wanted people to have access. Ged. P.s I know my mails from work have that annoying disclaimer. Unfortunately I can't get rid of it without passing through an external script to remove it (which would be breaking my company rules) ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

1 0

RE: [ros-dev] Re: Copyright notices
by Murphy, Ged (Bolton) 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Quandary wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 01:17:11PM +0200, Rafal Kupiec > wrote: > > K McI wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Rafal Kupiec wrote: > > > > > >>I think, now we're not violating the GPL. > > >>for eg: > > > >>http://svn.berlios.de/wsvn/hostilix/trunk/Sources/apps/notep > ad/dialog. > > >c?op=diff&rev=0&sc=1 > > > > > > > > > I hope Revision 42 isn't the latest because the > > > URI is invalid (You lost a "w" somewhere from 1 to > > > 42)! > > > (...) > > > > What? > > > > The site. The site that the above link points to. > Look at it. > > * Copyright(C) 1999-2005r. BetaComp Team > <http://www.betacomp.info/> > > becomes > > * This file is a part of BetaComp Team Project > <http://ww.betacomp.info/> > > Notice the missing W in "ww.betacomp.info". > I still don't understand why they have to put their mark on the code at all. Is it some kind of ego boost the hostilix team is a after? Is it because they want people to think they have the skill the ROS devs have? Is it because they want people to think they wrote the code? IMO, if you use code from another project, you leave the code as it is, i.e. no claiming copyright, no adding headers to claim ownership, or to trick people into thinking it's your code, or any other type of header just for the sake of adding it. The only time you should be adding your own mark is when you have altered the code in some way. Your mark should then be added, in addition to the current list of programmers. To be honest, I find it all rather sad and quite pathetic to need to stoop to this level. Just take the damn headers off and all this hostility will end. Ged. ************************************************************************ The information contained in this message or any of its attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk <mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message. Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries. Further information can be found at www.exide.com

1 0

Re: [ros-dev] Copyright notices
by Quandary 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:16:16PM +0200, Eric Kohl wrote: > Lucio Diaz wrote: > >Third post, but, i downloaded their source code, > >and it seems the original copyright notices are > >there, so they are not violating the GNU licence. > > > >Best regards, > >Lucio Diaz. > > The Hostilix 'developers' are still guilty of > willful misrepresentation of the copyright because > 1) They added their copyright to otherwise unchanged > files and 2) they can only claim a copyright for the > year 2005 but not from 1999 to 2005. > > So they are still violating the GPL. They aren't violating the GPL by misrepresentation (per se); they're (likely) violating the underlying copyright law by making a false claim to ownership. There's a subtle difference ;). -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 5

Re: [ros-dev] Re: Copyright notices
by Quandary 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 11:09:01AM +0200, Rafal Kupiec wrote: > I think, now we're not violating the GPL. > for eg: >http://svn.berlios.de/wsvn/hostilix/trunk/Sources/apps/notepad/dialog.c?op=… You know, it would have been WAY simpler if you had just not screwed with -any- of the file headers in the first place. Grab the latest ReactOS SVN, export it, re-import it into your SVN, then DON'T MESS WITH THE COPYRIGHT NOTICES. I mean, you've obviously had to do a lot of work to add your name and replace the contents of the other files, and look at how much good it's done you? In reality, the "right" process is really, really easy. It's not necessary to plaster your name all over the place, especially if you haven't done anything in a given file. Whenever you make a change, just add your copyright to the start of the file. It's that easy. It means you do 0 work up front, *and* you don't have angry devs breathing down your neck about blatently ripping them off. "Branding" all of the files, to be frank, is a *very* stupid waste of your time, and has (clearly) only served to piss everyone off. Now, that's not to say people still won't be disgruntled about it, but they'll grumble much more quietly -- and it's WAY easier for you to cover your ass by saying "all of the original copyright notices in the source are intact" (because if you only add notices, it doesn't remove or alter the existing notices). Release everything under GPL, and bam... you shouldn't run into too much trouble. Cheers, -- Travis ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

1 0

my first time - userenv lang file
by Sebastian Gasiorek 28 Jun '05

28 Jun '05

Hi,. I'm polish fan of ReactOS. I would like to help you in making ReactOS better. I have some developer skills with C++ on Windows (x86, CE) platform but i don't have enough time to help you in this area (maybe i'm to sluggish :-( ). At this time i would like to help you with translating ReactOS to Polish language. In attachement there is a polish translation of userenv. Sorry for my poor english. Sebastian Gasiorek

1 0

28 Jun '05

Third post, but, i downloaded their source code, and it seems the original copyright notices are there, so they are not violating the GNU licence. Best regards, Lucio Diaz. ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

2 1

28 Jun '05

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html Violations of the GPL, LGPL, and GFDL "how the license was violated: Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included?" Best regards, Lucio Diaz. ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

1 0

28 Jun '05

Regardless of its legality, removing copyright notes from the sources, thus refusing the right of the authors, is RUDE. There would have been no problem, i am quite sure, if they have just forked reactos and left copyright notices (adding their names to the contributing if they add to source in the files). For example, we did not remove the wine copyright notices. Still i believe many judges would consider this a copyright infringment, why? Cause the license says: "We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software." The licence gives you permision to modify the software (thus the source code), but says nothing about granting the right to modify the copyright notices. This is something to be said by an advocate of course. My best sugestion would be to contact the FSF, explain the situation, and ask them what to do. Best regards, Lucio Diaz. ______________________________________________ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es

1 0

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:28:26AM +0200, KJKHyperion wrote: > Quandary wrote: > > >1) links, please. > > > > > It was MicroBSD (http://www.microbsd.net/). The > case: > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=104581971124603&w=4 >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=104568226621371&w=4 You will notice that there is an express written request to "[leave the] copyright notice intact" in this example. -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix
by Quandary 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:43:26PM +0200, KJKHyperion wrote: > Quandary wrote: > > > And that's my point exactly -- you'd need a lawyer > > to interpret that, and ultimately it's the judge > > who makes the final decision > > nope. In these matters, the copyright holder > basically owns your ass. We can revoke all rights to > anyone we please. That depends on the jurisdiction, which is another big whole mess. No one person owns the copyright, here, and there are contributors in lots of countries. So... which court would this even be tried in? Whose laws apply? We don't have a revokation clause in the license; does this mean it's revokable? Non-revokable? Again, you need a lawyer and *some* semblance of jurisdiction before you can even begin to start untangling this mess. > Copyleft is just good manners, copyright is the > law. Remember this already happened: a fork of > OpenBSD was killed by license termination in > response to copyright misrepresentation - and, boy, > does it take a special brand of stupidity to manage > to violate a BSD license 1) links, please. 2) Copyleft is law, too -- since it's based directly on copyright. Some licenses leverage that legal ability (GPL), some don't (BSD). > That said, the Hostilix people have no shame and no > fear; they are well-known copyright violators (their > WinuxOS was a repackaged Windows 2000, wasting > SourceForge's bandwidth too) and are doing their > best to alienate us; they are a bunch of loser punk > posers who embarass the whole OS-development scene. > Let them get away with it, they are do-no-good hacks > and nothing can punish them worse than simply > existing. Hostilix will die naturally from the > complete lack of any form of skill on the part of > the pathetic clowns who conceived it Agreed. -- Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev