I thought Rand and Nyaneave cleansed saidar of the taint?
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 22-Sep-07, at 3:22 PM, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:19 PM, João Jerónimo wrote:
The point of a possible 3rd party audit is raising the legal credibility of the ReactOS project by ensuring that no tainted code is left in the source tree, right?
The word "tainted" is actually quite wrong, and is being misused everywhere. A tea was tainted by polonium in a not-so-recent accident in the UK. ReactOS is not a tea, and we have no "polonium" commiters.
There will be a WineConf event in 1 or 2 weeks, and they say they are going to clear up the legal situation around Wine, around SFLC audit and around requirements to the developers, whose code may be commited to the tree.
When they do it, I would be very glad to know those requirements, and enforce them on ReactOS developers, so that we are on the common ground.
Well, if the project is going to wait until more modules stabilize, won't this stabilization process obfuscate most of the tainted source code, and make them hard to find?
Your mind is ahead of you. "Taint obfuscated code", "Obfuscate tainted code", ... Your question is obfuscated and may be tainted, I won't answer it.
WBR, Aleksey Bragin. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev