4 Dec
2005
4 Dec
'05
4:50 p.m.
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Are you sure a public mailing list is the right place
for this? Don't hide
behind Steven on this, he didn't put a gun to your head to force you to make
the post, you decided for yourself.
You have GOT to stop putting words in my mouth, it's gotten really annoying.
A recent example, when the
question came up how to prevent umpnpmgr from popping up dialogs during
second stage setup, you told us that IDA revealed that Windows uses such and
such registry key for that.
I actually used "Strings" to dump out the registry keys. That's not
reverse engineering.
Why would we need to implement this identical to
Windows? Why not create a independent implementation (which could happen to
be the same, only arrived at independently)?
Uhh..let's see...because that key is
1) Public
2) Documented
3) Recommended for use by 3rd party software.
When asked about stuff like this, your reply is that
reverse engineering is
legal.
No, my reply is that 1) this wasn't reverse engineering. 2) This key HAD
to be copied. Doing it "independently" would break any app using it. 3)
This key is public info.
I don't dispute it is, when done properly. I'm
just not sure that the
way you're doing it, reverse engineering Windows and then writing ReactOS
code, is proper.
I don't do that, that is against the ReactOS IP Policy. Please explain
how you go to from "he found a registry string" to "he reverses code
then writes ReactOS code"
I have no solid evidence either way on whether it's
legal
or not legal and I'd rather err on the side of caution. In short, I do think
your contributions potentially present a major threat to the project.
Thanks for your comments.
However, I find the fact that you've been ignoring me whenever I try to
talk to you on IRC, and then decide to leave, and that you now make
public accusations ("reverse engineering Windows and then writing
ReactOS code" happens to be good enough reason to kick someone out) is
pretty arrogant too. Just my 2 cents.
GvG
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu