Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

1 participants
5793 discussions

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

27 Jun '05

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:24:04AM -0700, magnus(a)itkonsult-olsen.com wrote: > Hi > > I still alot pissoff hotlix they are still breaking > gpl I also don't particularly like what they are doing, but I don't think that they are breaking the GPL. > see GPL Licen paragraph 2.c > If the modified program normally reads commands > interactively when run, you must cause it, when > started running for such interactive use in the most > ordinary way, to print or display an announcement (emphasis) > including an appropriate copyright notice and a > notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying > that you provide a warranty) and that users may > redistribute the program under these conditions, and > telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (/emphasis) > (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but > does not normally print such an announcement, your > work based on the Program is not required to print > an announcement.) > > > Hotlix have replace there copyright note on every > dll and exe files at run time. ReactOS are > interactive when it start and therefore are you not > allown to change the copyright note. Sorry, but you're making a logical jump. The license above says that the modified program must display an *appropriate* copyright notice -- it does not say that the notice can't be changed. Your definition of appropriate (i.e., saying the original dev's name) may not be the legal definition (e.g., the most significant contributor, the latest contributor, the second developer's third-neice-twice-removed's boyfriend's dog, or whatever). So, from the checklist: 1. Do they print a copyright notice that is appropriate? 2. Do they print that the program is GPL-licensed? 3. Do they print how to view the license terms? They appear to comply (or can easily comply with) 2 and 3. Unless you have a lawyer, though, 1 is gray. > When you take > view propites of a dll / exe / sys / .. we are > showing our copyright. therefor are you not allown > to change this copyright note. (see above -- same error) > and they are breaking paragraph > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or > distribute the Program except as expressly provided > under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, > modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is > void, and will automatically terminate your rights > under this License. However, parties who have > received copies, or rights, from you under this > License will not have their licenses terminated so > long as such parties remain in full compliance. > > > They are not allown to change any licen from us. Please clarify. According to them, they are using the GPL license -- same as us. I don't see how they are changing the licensing. > for we using sublicen wine dll are lgpl and our own > code are gpl thefor should wine dll see as a > sublicen. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. However, note that the LGPL allows you to "upgrade" to the GPL license (it's effectively a dual license). The LGPL states: 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices. Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- it's all one license (GPL). > I have not check see if they are still breaking more > paragraph in gpl. And I start thinking to we or I > should send a email say at they have break gpl and > they are not longer right to use our code or my. As irate as you may be, nothing that you've brought up thus far looks to be an infraction of the GPL (although they could *potentially* be breaking some copyright law or other, e.g. by adding their copyright notices and removing existing ones, or by failing to cite sources of patches). > I need get this out from my head and hart. I am alot > pissoff on holtix guys. The taking our patch and put > into there source there. without telling how have > wrote the code. I agree that that's wrong and unfair. People deserve credit and recognition for the work that they do. > That mean they are breaking some copyright laws. If you can find the particular law that applies, go for it. I'm not an international lawyer myself, so I don't know what laws even apply to them -- let alone if they're breaking those laws. > You can not take other source code > and put into another there without writen > permitontion You contributed your code under the terms of the GPL. That is your "written permission," sorry to say -- by your own choice of license, the source code is available to be copied, reworked, and re-released by anyone else. I'll also reiterate that they do seem to be in compliance (though only by words and not in spirit). > or tell where the code comes from. if > you look at there source there you will think they > have wrote the patch code. But it is some devloper > at us that have write the patch for reactos. Sigh. -- Travis __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

2 1

Question about _fputts
by Tim Jobling 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Hi, I've added a load of functionality to our Ipconfig. It now actually try's to display the IP address :) It works quite well under WindowsXP, and is no worse than the current one on ReactOS. The patch is in Bugzilla, bug number [658]. It would be nice of someone with write access could commit this. It has razed a question though. To display the usage, a you type "ipconfig /?" The patched version then try's to output a TCHAR string using _fputts(szUsage, stderr). But it only outputs the last 9 characters of the string. Is this a new bug, or am I doing something wrong? Tim ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
by Ge van Geldorp 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Alex, I think blight was right on this one. We make a big fuzz when copyright notices/author info gets lost when files are copied by Hostilix, we should make sure we do the proper thing ourselves. I also feel that you miss critical people-skills needed for kernel coordinator, so you lost my vote (when it comes to a vote...). Gé van Geldorp.

6 5

Re: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
by Anich Gregor 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

You are such an IDIOT! If i wanted to see my copyright in the file i could add it to each file i touch, like you do. I was just saying that it was bad to base a new file on a old one, copying blocks of the old one into the new one (or rewriting them - at the end one sees its the same code with different syntax), then remove the original authors copyright (dwelch), add his own name, svn delete the old file and add the new file instead of moving and keeping all copytrights in the file/history. You said you didnt know who wrote the FPU code (after i said that i have written it and noone can see that because of the deleted history), but you would have had to assume that it was written by dwelch if thats the only name in the file (and add his name to the new file) or simply keep the history of the file so everyone can see which part was written by whom. So the file said it was written by dwelch, while the history showed that it was written by me (i didnt want to add my copyright into the file, knowing that people can see from the history that i have written it was enough satisfaction) - and now the history is gone and the file leaves the impression that everything was written 100% by you. IMO we should try to take care of others copyright (even if you dont like them) I never asked you to add my copyright back to the file, and you would also have to add david welch again (and all the others from the old history which worked on the file), no only me!

4 6

Re: [ros-svn] [ekohl] 16283: Don't redefine ANSI_STRING, UNICODE_STRING and OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES if the NDK already defines them.
by Alex Ionescu 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

ekohl(a)svn.reactos.com wrote: >Don't redefine ANSI_STRING, UNICODE_STRING and OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES if the NDK already defines them. > > >Updated files: >trunk/reactos/w32api/include/ntsecapi.h > >_________ > Hi Eric, Unforunately, we don't have the liberty to do this, since the real PSDK file doesn't, and MS Header compatibility is a goal. The NDK must always follow ntsecapi.h. Best regards, Alex Ionescu

2 2

Re: [ros-svn] [ion] 16288: Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego
by Jason Filby 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

What exactly changed? Thanks Jason On 6/26/05, ion(a)svn.reactos.com <ion(a)svn.reactos.com> wrote: > Satisfy blight's excessively arrogant attitude and overblown ego > > > Updated files: > trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/ctxswitch.S > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-svn mailing list > Ros-svn(a)reactos.com > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-svn >

1 0

Build breakage
by Alex Ionescu 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Hi, I am currently working to convert win32k to NDK, which is the final component still using the old headers. This creates a lot of conflicts and issues between trunk and my local changes, and I'm trying to commit them bit-by-bit instead of a gigantic patch. As such, unfortunately, HEAD revision will be broken for another 30 minutes. These should be the last large header changes, and trunk will be stabilzed after the next one or two patches. Thank you for your understanding. Best regards, Alex Ionescu

1 1

Compile Errors
by James Tabor 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Hi! Make clean, svn up and make, DBG = 1 KDBG = 0, [CC] drivers/video/videoprt/int10.c In file included from drivers/video/videoprt/int10.c:25: ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:56: error: syntax error before "KTRAP_FRAME" ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:56: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: error: syntax error before '}' token ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of `KV86M_TRAP_FRAME' ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of `PKV86M_TRAP_FRAME' ntoskrnl/include/internal/v86m.h:66: warning: data definition has no type or storage class make: *** [obj-i386/drivers/video/videoprt/int10.o] Error 1 I noticed the #ifndef __ASM__ was removed from v86m.h. Thanks, James

1 0

Re: [ros-svn] [ekohl] 16272: Fix indentation, remove trailing whitespace and sort prototypes.
by Alex Ionescu 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

ekohl(a)svn.reactos.com wrote: >Fix indentation, remove trailing whitespace and sort prototypes. > > > > Hi Eric, Thanks a lot, this takes off one of the things which I was planning to do once everything is finalized! Best regards, Alex Ionescu

1 0

Proposed change to Bugzilla setup
by Ge van Geldorp 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Currently, the "Initial Owner" of bug reports is set based on the component selected in the bug report. Most of the components still have Vizzini as the initial owner. Since he left the project, that doesn't make much sense anymore. I'd like to change all initial owners to "ros-bugs(a)reactos.com", a new mailing list. Subscribers to that list would then get notifications of new bug submissions. This type of setup seems to work for a lot of open source projects. If there are no objections I'll create the list and switch Bugzilla on Thursday. Gé van Geldorp.

3 4

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