Re: [ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix

I meaing when we are printing out a copyright note
and that copyright note must be intact or the copyright string.
they are not allown to change it. see paragraph 2.c
and reactos is interactiv. and you for not remove or modify any copyright
under runtime. I piss off for hotlix have change the runtime copyright notes.

sublicen some dll are wines and are under lgpl
therefor thuese this licen become a sublicen to reactos.
and gpl say any sublicen part of source code. the sublicen
for not be chaning. that meaning lgpl can not become gpl for we are realing wine
code back as lgpl. therefor can they not take thuse dll or other part of source
in ros comes under diffent licen and change it. for the main licen forbit it.

see paragraph 4


Quoting Quandary <ai2097(a)yahoo.com>om>:

>   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
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>