10 Mar
2010
10 Mar
'10
4:41 a.m.
Hello Steven,
I have talked with eVb and perhaps there is a language barrier:
His commit message said that he used the NT4 DDK driver because the license does not
prohibit it (especially as only a fraction of it is used).
He then said that there have been some small number of changes since NT4, obviously, and
that he used the Virtual Box Display Driver (available under GPL) to figure out what those
changes are.
Since the Virtual Box Display Driver is actually the 2003 DDK driver, some people may have
wondered why not use it directly, and eVB is explaining that:
1) He feels very insecure about Virtual Box/Sun claiming that the code is truly
"GPL" considering the 2003 DDK does not allow that (unless Microsoft made an
exception for Sun -- do note that this code existed before VirtualBox was under Sun,
however).
2) There is an additional file, present both in the NT4 DDK version and in the Virtual Box
driver that has a very explicit claim that there is a color dithering patent that
Microsoft will sue you for unless you work at Microsoft. eVb did not import that file at
all in ReactOS, and so we use standard GDI dithering code.
eVb finally notes that the previous (ReactOS) driver was actually an obvious copy of the
DDK sample, with variables renamed to hide the truth, but some comments are long and
identical in a way that makes it clear what the original source of the driver is. Just
like VirtualBox/Sun, the developer of this older ReactOS driver slapped a "GPL
2" license on it, because, it would seem, renaming variables, is the sure way to be
okay with a license. (Considering the numerous other such abuses throughout the SVN tree,
I'm not surprised). eVb notes that this kind of behavior will land someone in jail one
day.
So to summarize:
1) Old ReactOS driver: pretty much copy/pasted and "fixified" DDK driver to hide
the evidence, slapped with GPL 2 license.
2) Virtual Box driver: copy/pasted DDK driver slapped with GPL 2 license, including on top
of a very threatening statement from Microsoft about their color dithering algorithm.
3) 2003 DDK driver: Cannot be used in open source products under most licenses, cannot be
used for non-Windows products.
4) NT4 DDK driver: Free to use and re-license as needed (supposedly), but contains
patented code with threatening statement.
...
5) eVb's driver: NT4 DDK driver, not relicensed to avoid legal unknown waters, and
without the patented code present.
For evidence of #1, one can simply compare GetAvailableModes in the current framebuf
driver in screen.c, which is listed as "Copyrighted" by a certain "Filip
Navara", and followed by a GPL 2 license. You can then check getAvailableModes in
screen.c in framebuf_new (with the correct copyright/license of NT4 DDK). You'll note
the code is identical down to the comments.
I for one, am thankful that not only is eVb fixing bugs in the graphics subsystem, but
also getting you out of legal trouble.
-r
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM,
<evb(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
- New Framebuffer (Linear) Display Driver to
support new unified VGA/VBE miniport. Based on NT4 DDK Sample, with modifications by me
(marked with // eVb) to support new functionality needed for 2003-era driver.
- Also used Virtual Box Display Driver as sample, which is based on "GPL"
Windows 2003 DDK sample driver. Could not use 2003 DDK sample directly because of
licensing issues, and feel unsafe about VirtualBox "GPL" driver that says
"PATENTED AND ONLY FOR USE IN MICROSOFT PRODUCTS".
- Note that old driver was based off DDK sample too, but with variables renamed (some
comments identical!) and code reformatted, then marked as "GPL". This is not
very good way to share/use code... one day someone can teach you lesson.
I am not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you saying
that the wishes of the Author should not be respected? The PATENTED
statement is an extra qualifier. We are talking about two issues,
patents (which are vague and Copyright which is clear). Clearly the
author being Microsoft does not want it's code used as a derived work
for a non-windows OS. As the copyright owner and licensor that is
their right. Or do you propose that developers ignore the copyright
law and do it anyway?
If you want to import the Windows 2003 DDK driver and create a derived
work in violation of the terms, do the rest of us a favor and upload a
scanned copy of your drivers license, passport or whatever as a
resource for this driver so Microsoft will know exactly who to sue.
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev