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