23 Sep
2007
23 Sep
'07
3:41 a.m.
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
Rephrasing!
I know English fairly well, but I have some expression problems cebause I
tend to use very complex sentences!
There can be, in the official tree, code that shouldn't be there because it
can pose legal problems to ReactOS... So, for credibility reasons, the
project is going to ask for an external audit to ensure there is no such
code. (sic, except the point about credibility) But this is going to be
when more modules stabilize. (sic)
But when more modules have stabilized, it will be less likely that that
code will be found, because with the development, functions are rewritten,
reformatted, etc., making it difficult to detect what you call dirty room
reverse engineering, as well as code that was copied (or alike) from windows...
The problem is only the credibility of the project, of course. The WHOLE
problem is credibility. It's more or less the same whether we have code
directly derivated from its windows counterpart or not, if the project has
done what is possible to remove any (sorry, but the word is soooo
gramatically useful!) "tainted" code.
JJ
__________________________________________________
Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
The word "tainted" is actually quite wrong,
and is being misused
everywhere.
I think so, but this was the word employed by some devs to refer to the
code that was produced by people who (supposely) had seen leaked Windows
source code.
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.
Sorry. The purpose was not offensive at all!
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.