Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.

[Ged Murphy]

Hi Eric,

I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.

http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...

Ged.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.

Author: ekohl
Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
New Revision: 61145

[Alexander Andrejevic]

Hi Ged,

Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,
Alexander

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
>
> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
>
> Ged.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
>
> Author: ekohl
> Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> New Revision: 61145
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

The exact words of the license, as seen at
http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
it), are:

"4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."

Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be absolutely
no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms don't
conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the ReactOS
exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a lawyer, though,
so I could be wrong.

On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
[e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Ged,
>
> Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
> limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
> >
> > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
> >
> > Ged.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> >
> > Author: ekohl
> > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > New Revision: 61145
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

Oh I should have clicked the link, I just noticed that code uses
MS-LPL 1.1, which is worded differently.

The new wording is:

"(F) Platform Limitation - The licenses granted in sections 2(A) and
2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
that run directly on a Microsoft Windows operating system product,
Microsoft run-time technology (such as the .NET Framework or
Silverlight), or Microsoft application platform (such as Microsoft
Office or Microsoft Dynamics)."

This is a lot more ambiguous, whether or not the new word "directly"
changes things. I think it doesn't, but it would require a more
lawyer-y mind to figure out.

On 29 November 2013 17:35, David Quintana (gigaherz) [e-mail] wrote:
> The exact words of the license, as seen at
> http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
> it), are:
>
> "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
> 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
> that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
>
> Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be absolutely
> no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms don't
> conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the ReactOS
> exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a lawyer, though,
> so I could be wrong.
>
> On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Ged,
> >
> > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
> > limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alexander
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
> > >
> > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
> > >
> > > Ged.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > >
> > > Author: ekohl
> > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > New Revision: 61145
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alexander Andrejevic]

Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered "mere aggregation", and
that is not the problem. (See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or distribute it, unless it's
on Microsoft Windows.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It would be great if someone
who knows a lot about licenses explained this.

Regards,
Alexander

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> The exact words of the license, as seen at
> http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
> it), are:
>
> "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
> 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
> that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
>
> Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be absolutely
> no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms don't
> conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the ReactOS
> exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a lawyer, though,
> so I could be wrong.
>
> On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Ged,
> >
> > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
> > limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alexander
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
> > >
> > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
> > >
> > > Ged.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > >
> > > Author: ekohl
> > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > New Revision: 61145
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long as
it runs in windows without an intermediary".

On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
[e-mail] wrote:
> Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered "mere aggregation", and
> that is not the problem. (See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or distribute it, unless it's
> on Microsoft Windows.
> Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It would be great if someone
> who knows a lot about licenses explained this.
>
> Regards,
> Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> > The exact words of the license, as seen at
> > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
> > it), are:
> >
> > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
> > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
> > that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> >
> > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be absolutely
> > no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms don't
> > conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the ReactOS
> > exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a lawyer, though,
> > so I could be wrong.
> >
> > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Hi Ged,
> > >
> > > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
> > > limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > >
> > > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
> > > >
> > > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
> > > >
> > > > Ged.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > >
> > > > Author: ekohl
> > > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > New Revision: 61145
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alexander Andrejevic]

I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run
on a Microsoft Windows operating system product" sounds like the program must run
on Windows exclusively. It's not "... that you create to run ...", but "... that you
create that run ...".

Regards,
Alexander

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
> license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
> which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long as
> it runs in windows without an intermediary".
>
> On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered "mere aggregation", and
> > that is not the problem. (See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> > The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or distribute it, unless it's
> > on Microsoft Windows.
> > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It would be great if someone
> > who knows a lot about licenses explained this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alexander
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> > > The exact words of the license, as seen at
> > > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
> > > it), are:
> > >
> > > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
> > > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
> > > that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> > >
> > > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> > > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> > > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be absolutely
> > > no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms don't
> > > conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the ReactOS
> > > exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a lawyer, though,
> > > so I could be wrong.
> > >
> > > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > Hi Ged,
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
> > > > limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Alexander
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ged.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > > > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Author: ekohl
> > > > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > > New Revision: 61145
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > > > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Pierre Schweitzer]

Hi all,

Let's the experts do.

I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to promote
and defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose
it through their contact form).

I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.

Regards,

On 11/29/2013 06:05 PM, Alexander Andrejevic wrote:
> I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
> To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run
> on a Microsoft Windows operating system product" sounds like the program must run
> on Windows exclusively. It's not "... that you create to run ...", but "... that you
> create that run ...".
>
> Regards,
> Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> > I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
> > license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
> > which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long as
> > it runs in windows without an intermediary".
> >
> > On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered "mere aggregation", and
> > > that is not the problem. (See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> > > The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or distribute it, unless it's
> > > on Microsoft Windows.
> > > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It would be great if someone
> > > who knows a lot about licenses explained this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> > > > The exact words of the license, as seen at
> > > > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
> > > > it), are:
> > > >
> > > > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
> > > > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
> > > > that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> > > >
> > > > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> > > > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> > > > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be absolutely
> > > > no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms don't
> > > > conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the ReactOS
> > > > exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a lawyer, though,
> > > > so I could be wrong.
> > > >
> > > > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > Hi Ged,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a rather weird
> > > > > limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > > > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-System-Driver-13...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > > > > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Author: ekohl
> > > > > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > > > New Revision: 61145
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > > > > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail]
> > > SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Pierre Schweitzer [e-mail]
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation

[Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO]

Nice idea Pierre!

About this license we're talking about: yes I understand as Aleksander: that
you can only use fastfat or derived works from it, on an (authentic) Windows
OS (just my 2 cents, I'm not a lawyer too).

Hermès.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
part de Pierre Schweitzer
Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
À : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.

Hi all,

Let's the experts do.

I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to promote and
defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose it
through their contact form).

I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.

Regards,

On 11/29/2013 06:05 PM, Alexander Andrejevic wrote:
> I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
> To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you 
> create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product" 
> sounds like the program must run on Windows exclusively. It's not "... 
> that you create to run ...", but "... that you create that run ...".
>
> Regards,
> Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> > I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The 
> > license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows, 
> > which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long 
> > as it runs in windows without an intermediary".
> >
> > On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic 
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered 
> > > "mere aggregation", and that is not the problem. (See

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> > > The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or 
> > > distribute it, unless it's on Microsoft Windows.
> > > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It 
> > > would be great if someone who knows a lot about licenses explained this.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)

wrote:
> > > > The exact words of the license, as seen at 
> > > > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link 
> > > > for it), are:
> > > >
> > > > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) 
> > > > &
> > > > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you 
> > > > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> > > >
> > > > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a 
> > > > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in 
> > > > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be 
> > > > absolutely no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms 
> > > > don't conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the 
> > > > ReactOS exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a 
> > > > lawyer, though, so I could be wrong.
> > > >
> > > > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic 
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > Hi Ged,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? 
> > > > > It has a rather weird limitation in section 4, which says that you can

only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > > > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite

the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would

certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work
from.
> > > > > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-Syste
> > > > > > m-Driver-135bdf34/view/SourceCode
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: [e-mail] 
> > > > > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]

FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > > > > Author: ekohl
> > > > > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > > > New Revision: 61145
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail] SDF Public Access 
> > > > > UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexander Andrejevic [e-mail] SDF Public Access 
> > > UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

--
Pierre Schweitzer [e-mail]
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation

[Aleksey Bragin]

To give you my position:
1. Current FAT driver in ReactOS needs to die away. I am testing all my 
new code with the MS's FASTFAT driver.
2. Lawyers advice is needed whether we can distribute it.

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin

On 29.11.2013 21:55, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote:
> Nice idea Pierre!
>
> About this license we're talking about: yes I understand as Aleksander: that
> you can only use fastfat or derived works from it, on an (authentic) Windows
> OS (just my 2 cents, I'm not a lawyer too).
>
> Hermès.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
> part de Pierre Schweitzer
> Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
> FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
>
> Hi all,
>
> Let's the experts do.
>
> I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to promote and
> defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose it
> through their contact form).
>
> I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.
>
> Regards,
>
> On 11/29/2013 06:05 PM, Alexander Andrejevic wrote:
> > I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
> > To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you
> > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product"
> > sounds like the program must run on Windows exclusively. It's not "...
> > that you create to run ...", but "... that you create that run ...".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alexander
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
> > > I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
> > > license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
> > > which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long
> > > as it runs in windows without an intermediary".
> > >
> > > On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered
> > > > "mere aggregation", and that is not the problem. (See
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> > > > The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or
> > > > distribute it, unless it's on Microsoft Windows.
> > > > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It
> > > > would be great if someone who knows a lot about licenses explained this.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Alexander
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
>
> wrote:
> > > > > The exact words of the license, as seen at
> > > > > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link
> > > > > for it), are:
> > > > >
> > > > > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A)
> > > > > &
> > > > > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you
> > > > > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> > > > >
> > > > > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> > > > > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> > > > > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be
> > > > > absolutely no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms
> > > > > don't conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the
> > > > > ReactOS exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a
> > > > > lawyer, though, so I could be wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Ged,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL?
> > > > > > It has a rather weird limitation in section 4, which says that you can
>
> only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > > > > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite
>
> the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > > > > The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would
>
> certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem to work
> from.
> > > > > > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-Syste
> > > > > > > m-Driver-135bdf34/view/SourceCode
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: [e-mail]
> > > > > > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > > Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
>
> FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > > > > > Author: ekohl
> > > > > > > Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > > > > New Revision: 61145
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

[Pierre Schweitzer]

The April couldn't give a precise answer. I've moved to the FSF and
opened a ticket there.

I will keep you informed.

On 29/11/2013 20:31, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> To give you my position:
> Current FAT driver in ReactOS needs to die away. I am testing all
>
> my new code with the MS's FASTFAT driver.
> 2. Lawyers advice is needed whether we can distribute it.
>
> Regards,
> Aleksey Bragin
>
> On 29.11.2013 21:55, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote:
> > Nice idea Pierre!
> >
> > About this license we're talking about: yes I understand as
> > Aleksander: that
> > you can only use fastfat or derived works from it, on an (authentic)
> > Windows
> > OS (just my 2 cents, I'm not a lawyer too).
> >
> > Hermès.
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > De la
> > part de Pierre Schweitzer
> > Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
> > À : [e-mail]
> > Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
> > FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Let's the experts do.
> >
> > I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to
> > promote and
> > defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose it
> > through their contact form).
> >
> > I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > On 11/29/2013 06:05 PM, Alexander Andrejevic wrote:
> > > I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
> > > To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you
> > > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product"
> > > sounds like the program must run on Windows exclusively. It's not "...
> > > that you create to run ...", but "... that you create that run ...".
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
> > > wrote:
> > > > I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
> > > > license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
> > > > which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long
> > > > as it runs in windows without an intermediary".
> > > >
> > > > On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered
> > > > > "mere aggregation", and that is not the problem. (See
> >
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> > > > > The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or
> > > > > distribute it, unless it's on Microsoft Windows.
> > > > > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It
> > > > > would be great if someone who knows a lot about licenses explained
> > > > > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > The exact words of the license, as seen at
> > > > > > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link
> > > > > > for it), are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A)
> > > > > > &
> > > > > > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you
> > > > > > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> > > > > > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> > > > > > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be
> > > > > > absolutely no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms
> > > > > > don't conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the
> > > > > > ReactOS exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a
> > > > > > lawyer, though, so I could be wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Ged,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL?
> > > > > > > It has a rather weird limitation in section 4, which says that
> > > > > > > you can
> >
> > only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > > > > > Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi Eric,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite
> >
> > the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > > > >> The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would
> >
> > certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem
> > to work
> > from.
> > > > > > >> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-Syste
> > > > > > >> m-Driver-135bdf34/view/SourceCode
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Ged.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > > > >> To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
> >
> > FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > > > > >> Author: ekohl
> > > > > > >> Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > > > >> New Revision: 61145
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Pierre Schweitzer<pierre at reactos.org>
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation

[Mario Rugiero]

They might hate everything except GNU GPL, but they do acknowledge when
other license meets their criteria (read, the four freedoms) for free
software. To prove I'm not making this up, you can check their own site and
see for yourself how while they discourage it's use because it is not
copyleft, acknowledge BSD licenses are free. Also, they have lawyers who
can interpret the licenses in legal terms, regardless of liking it.

2013/11/29 Александр [e-mail]
> FSF hates everithing exept GNU GPL
>
> 29.11.2013, 23:36, "Pierre Schweitzer" [e-mail]:
>
> The April couldn't give a precise answer. I've moved to the FSF and
> opened a ticket there.
>
> I will keep you informed.
>
> On 29/11/2013 20:31, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
>
> To give you my position:
> Current FAT driver in ReactOS needs to die away. I am testing all
>
> my new code with the MS's FASTFAT driver.
>  2. Lawyers advice is needed whether we can distribute it.
>
> Regards,
>  Aleksey Bragin
>
> On 29.11.2013 21:55, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote:
>
> Nice idea Pierre!
>
> About this license we're talking about: yes I understand as
>  Aleksander: that
>  you can only use fastfat or derived works from it, on an (authentic)
>  Windows
>  OS (just my 2 cents, I'm not a lawyer too).
>
> Hermès.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
>  De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>  De la
>  part de Pierre Schweitzer
>  Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
>  À : [e-mail]
>  Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
>  FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
>
> Hi all,
>
> Let's the experts do.
>
> I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to
>  promote and
>  defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose it
>  through their contact form).
>
> I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.
>
> Regards,
>
> On 11/29/2013 06:05 PM, Alexander Andrejevic wrote:
>
> I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
>  To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you
>  create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product"
>  sounds like the program must run on Windows exclusively. It's not "...
>  that you create to run ...", but "... that you create that run ...".
>
> Regards,
>  Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
>  wrote:
>
> I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
>  license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
>  which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long
>  as it runs in windows without an intermediary".
>
> On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
>  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered
>  "mere aggregation", and that is not the problem. (See
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
>
> The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or
>  distribute it, unless it's on Microsoft Windows.
>  Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It
>  would be great if someone who knows a lot about licenses explained
>  this.
>
> Regards,
>  Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
>
> wrote:
>
> The exact words of the license, as seen at
>  http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link
>  for it), are:
>
> "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A)
>  &
>  2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you
>  create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
>
> Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
>  differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
>  windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be
>  absolutely no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms
>  don't conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the
>  ReactOS exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a
>  lawyer, though, so I could be wrong.
>
> On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
>  [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hi Ged,
>
> Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL?
>  It has a rather weird limitation in section 4, which says that
>  you can
>
> only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
>
> Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
>  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Regards,
>  Alexander
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite
>
> the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
>
> The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would
>
> certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem
>  to work
>  from.
>
> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-Syste
>  m-Driver-135bdf34/view/SourceCode
>
> Ged.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: [e-mail]
>  [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>  [e-mail]
>  Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
>  To: [e-mail]
>  Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
>
> FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
>
> Author: ekohl
>  Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
>  New Revision: 61145
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
>  [e-mail]
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Pierre Schweitzer<pierre at reactos.org>
> System Administrator
> ReactOS Foundation
>
> ,
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> С наилучшими пожеланиями, Александр.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Pierre Schweitzer]

Hi there,

Here is the answer from Nuno Brito, from the FSF:
On 29/11/2013 22:18, Nuno Brito via RT wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> I can't speak for the FSF but personally I am a fan of ReactOS since
> some 7 years now and been following (to some point) your progress and
> hardships. You guys do a great work.
>
> In regards to the MS-LPL, there is point 3.F of the license to consider:
> > (F) Platform Limitation - The licenses granted in sections 2(A) and
>
> 2(B) extend only >to the software or derivative works that you create
> that run directly on a Microsoft >Windows operating system product,
> Microsoft run-time technology (such as the .NET >Framework or
> Silverlight), or Microsoft application platform (such as Microsoft
> > Office or Microsoft Dynamics).
>
> Since ReactOS is not mentioned as a valid platform on this article, your
> rights to the code should be interpreted without the "Grant of Rights"
> section:
> > Grant of Rights
> >
> > (A) Copyright Grant - Subject to the terms of this license, including
>
> the license >conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
> grants you a non-exclusive, >worldwide, royalty-free copyright license
> to reproduce its contribution, prepare >derivative works of its
> contribution, and distribute its contribution or any >derivative works
> that you create.
> > (B) Patent Grant - Subject to the terms of this license, including the
>
> license >conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
> grants you a non-exclusive, >worldwide, royalty-free license under its
> licensed patents to make, have made, use, >sell, offer for sale, import,
> and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the >software or
> derivative works of the contribution in the software.
>
> So, I would say that point F in section 3 removes your rights (as
> provided by Microsoft) to the source code under the MS-LPL.
>
> One possible route is contacting the IP department at Microsoft and
> negotiate an agreement that basically allows ReactOS to proceed with
> this goal using an explicit permission from Microsoft. This is not an
> easy approach, even if the company is willing to negotiate (at no cost
> since ReactOS is a non-profit organization), I can imagine that you will
> need to analyze the contract terms quite thoroughly to ensure it is a
> fair agreement (and compatible with the FOSS licensing model).
>
> You should find an email contact point at
> http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/IntellectualProperty/IPLicensing/Policy...
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> With kind regards,
> Nuno Brito

So, it sounds like we cannot include any MS-LPL code in our trunk
without any prior legal work.

Regards,
Pierre

On 29/11/2013 20:35, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
> The April couldn't give a precise answer. I've moved to the FSF and
> opened a ticket there.
>
> I will keep you informed.
>
> On 29/11/2013 20:31, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> > To give you my position:
> > Current FAT driver in ReactOS needs to die away. I am testing all
> >
> > my new code with the MS's FASTFAT driver.
> > 2. Lawyers advice is needed whether we can distribute it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aleksey Bragin
> >
> > On 29.11.2013 21:55, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote:
> > > Nice idea Pierre!
> > >
> > > About this license we're talking about: yes I understand as
> > > Aleksander: that
> > > you can only use fastfat or derived works from it, on an (authentic)
> > > Windows
> > > OS (just my 2 cents, I'm not a lawyer too).
> > >
> > > Hermès.
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > De la
> > > part de Pierre Schweitzer
> > > Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
> > > À : [e-mail]
> > > Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
> > > FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Let's the experts do.
> > >
> > > I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to
> > > promote and
> > > defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose it
> > > through their contact form).
> > >
> > > I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > On 11/29/2013 06:05 PM, Alexander Andrejevic wrote:
> > > > I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
> > > > To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you
> > > > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product"
> > > > sounds like the program must run on Windows exclusively. It's not "...
> > > > that you create to run ...", but "... that you create that run ...".
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Alexander
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:55:08PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
> > > > > license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
> > > > > which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long
> > > > > as it runs in windows without an intermediary".
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered
> > > > > > "mere aggregation", and that is not the problem. (See
> > >
> > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
> > > > > > The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or
> > > > > > distribute it, unless it's on Microsoft Windows.
> > > > > > Then again, I'm not a lawyer either and I could be wrong too. It
> > > > > > would be great if someone who knows a lot about licenses explained
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0100, David Quintana (gigaherz)
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > The exact words of the license, as seen at
> > > > > > > http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link
> > > > > > > for it), are:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A)
> > > > > > > &
> > > > > > > 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you
> > > > > > > create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Excluding that term, the rest of the license is mostly a
> > > > > > > differently-worded BSD license. If it only needs to be tested in
> > > > > > > windows to ensure that it works there, then there should be
> > > > > > > absolutely no problem including it in ReactOS, as long as the terms
> > > > > > > don't conflict with the other licenses' terms. And GPL with the
> > > > > > > ReactOS exception, as far as I can tell, allows it. I'm not a
> > > > > > > lawyer, though, so I could be wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 29 November 2013 16:17, Alexander Andrejevic
> > > > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi Ged,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL?
> > > > > > >> It has a rather weird limitation in section 4, which says that
> > > > > > >> you can
> > >
> > > only use it on a "Microsoft Windows operating system product".
> > > > > > >> Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
> > > > > > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > >> Alexander
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:51PM -0000, Ged Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Hi Eric,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite
> > >
> > > the bullet and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
> > > > > > >>> The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would
> > >
> > > certainly get rid of any unknowns  and give us a reliable filesystem
> > > to work
> > > from.
> > > > > > >>> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/fastfat-File-Syste
> > > > > > >>> m-Driver-135bdf34/view/SourceCode
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Ged.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>> From: [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> Sent: 29 November 2013 14:06
> > > > > > >>> To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> Subject: [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
> > >
> > > FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
> > > > > > >>> Author: ekohl
> > > > > > >>> Date: Fri Nov 29 14:05:43 2013
> > > > > > >>> New Revision: 61145
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Pierre Schweitzer<pierre at reactos.org>
System Administrator
ReactOS Foundation

[James Tabor]

Well, at this rate, M$ may need to pay us for fixing their broken (open
source) floppy disk driver......

So, it sounds like we cannot include any MS-LPL code in our trunk without
> any prior legal work.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre

[Alex Ionescu]

If Nuno would be accurate, then Virtual Box is in violation of the
DDK/WDK/LPL license, because they are distributing the source of their vbox
drivers which are based on DDK/WDK, and the vbox drivers run on ReactOS.

In fact, any company that uses the DDK/WDK/LPL license would be sued if
their driver worked on ReactOS.

So the real issue is to make sure we are clear that the drivers are
designed to work on Windows -- not on ReactOS. It is ReactOS that is
designed to run Windows drivers, not the other way around. Obviously,
including such drivers in our:

1) Tree
2) Using our build system makefiles/hacks/resource files (all of which talk
about "ReactOS").
3) Packaging them as part of the standard ISO/build image
4) And hacking them to work around ReactOS issues

All weakens the legal case.

I think it would be beneficial to have a project, call it "React Drivers"
or something, which is a distinct tree/etc from the mainline. React Drivers
aims to, let's call it, "enable compilation of DDK/WDK/LPL sample drivers
under clang/msvc/cmake/mingw". It links with an .rc file that makes no
mention of it being anything else other than an open source Windows driver.
You could then make whatever changes you wanted to the sources, such as
reformatting/etc to fix warnings/cross-compiler errors, etc, as long as it
keeps working on Windows.

This would, I believe, survive under scrutiny as fair LPL use.

The flip side of this is that now the ReactOS tree no longer has an inbox
fdc driver. Just like if you want to use USB in VirtualBox, you need to
download the "Virtual Box Extensions", ReactOS would need a similar system.
We already have the ability during 2nd stage boot to ask the user to
download the Gecko package -- we should probably ask something similar of
users to download the "React Driver Package". This would drop all the
.INFs/etcs as needed -- in the same way, and with the same compatibility as
a Windows user could choose to do.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:02 AM, James Tabor [e-mail]:
> Well, at this rate, M$ may need to pay us for fixing their broken (open
> source) floppy disk driver......
>
> So, it sounds like we cannot include any MS-LPL code in our trunk without
> > any prior legal work.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pierre
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> I think it would be beneficial to have a project, call it "React
> Drivers" or something, which is a distinct tree/etc from the mainline.
>
> [...]
>
> The flip side of this is that now the ReactOS tree no longer has an
> inbox fdc driver.

I have to ask, considering all the complications and disadvantages such
a system would bring and all the work that has been put into our own
drivers over the years: Why is it absolutely necessary to replace our
existing drivers by MS example code wherever possible?

We would just drop a bunch of unknown code into our OS then, which may
or may not work properly depending on the current state of ReactOS.

Even without integrating the drivers into ReactOS, we can still test
against the MS counterparts when we suspect bugs. This can also be
automated through a hybrid Buildslave.

I believe we lose more than we win if we sacrifice our own code for
example code released under disputed MS licenses. It doesn't matter to
me that VirtualBox does the same, in contrast to them we have alternatives.

- Colin

[Aleksey Bragin]

On 02.12.2013 3:02, Colin Finck wrote:
> I have to ask, considering all the complications and disadvantages such
> a system would bring and all the work that has been put into our own
> drivers over the years: Why is it absolutely necessary to replace our
> existing drivers by MS example code wherever possible?
>
> We would just drop a bunch of unknown code into our OS then, which may
> or may not work properly depending on the current state of ReactOS.

It's not "unknown code". It's a code which is proven to work, and which 
works in millions of computers. Developing same driver as, say, fastfat 
would require so much wasted man power that I don't even want to think 
about that, when there is a ready piece of code waiting to be used.

And the whole point is to make ReactOS around the good working apps and 
drivers, not vice versa.

To conclude, our existing fastfast totally sucks. cdfs does too. Fixing 
them is a waste of time. Rewriting them - good project, but noone will 
use that driver. You won't get any testing. Everyone uses NTFS nowadays, 
and when it comes to FAT, noone in their sane mind would use our driver. 
Microsoft's one is just good enough, fast, native, whatever.

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin

[Colin Finck]

Aleksey Bragin [e-mail] wrote:
> To conclude, our existing fastfast totally sucks. cdfs does too. Fixing
> them is a waste of time. Rewriting them - good project, but noone will
> use that driver.

So what is the alternative? Shipping ReactOS without any FAT driver? ;)
The license discussions have already evolved to a point where we know
that we can't possibly include the MS fastfat example code in our tree.

What has happened to the FullFAT-powered driver project in the meantime?
Some years ago, it was still praised in high terms and even ready to
implement journaling on top of FAT
(https://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2009-July/011902.html).

- Colin

[Alex Ionescu]

Imo, up to me, we ship with minimal drivers to get to 2nd stage, and then
wipe everything with the WDK sample project.

Or we simply don't provide a bootable all-in-one CD. We make two separate
downloads and somehow make an easy-to-use "slipstreamer" that builds the
final CD. How to do this at conferences or with pressed CDs is another
matter.

I agree all of these solutions are ugly, and as Nuno says, also not
guaranteed to work (in the end, it's up to a judge or jury to decide).

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> Aleksey Bragin [e-mail] wrote:
> > To conclude, our existing fastfast totally sucks. cdfs does too. Fixing
> > them is a waste of time. Rewriting them - good project, but noone will
> > use that driver.
>
> So what is the alternative? Shipping ReactOS without any FAT driver? ;)
> The license discussions have already evolved to a point where we know
> that we can't possibly include the MS fastfat example code in our tree.
>
> What has happened to the FullFAT-powered driver project in the meantime?
> Some years ago, it was still praised in high terms and even ready to
> implement journaling on top of FAT
> (https://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2009-July/011902.html).
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Joshua Bailey]

Greetings:

I haven't posted on the forums or anything for a good while now, but I still keep tabs on the mailing lists and such.

On similar lines as Mr. Ionescu's suggestion, a separate disk could be made that includes a collection of drivers, which for binary blob/licensing reasons (or simply because including all of them would inflate the release ISOs too much) can't be distributed in the official ReactOS release.  It could be called "Windows Offline Drivers Disk" or something, nominally as a utility for people installing Windows on a computer not connected to the Internet (which can actually be a pain in the ass, especially when Windows can't find the driver to my USB WiFi adapter to connect to the Internet because Windows didn't ship with drivers for it and it's not connected to the Internet to access Windows Update but my Ethernet cable isn't long enough to go across the room and someone else is currently using it anyway), so that it has functionality with Windows systems separate from ReactOS, thus dodging the "are the drivers for Windows or ReactOS" issue.  During second
 stage of ReactOS installation there could be a prompt asking if the user would like to insert the Windows Offline Drivers Disk or (other media) to search for drivers.  (Or if the computer is connected to Internet the disk could be streamed from whatever site hosts it like how Download Manager does it with other apps, if that doesn't create a separate issue.)

I suggested something vaguely similar a long, long time ago on the forums to address the issue of ReactOS not shipping with a lot of drivers, so this conversation rung off a dusty bell in my head.

If this is only an issue for a few select drivers then a separate disk might be overboard.  Hope I'm not intruding by posting here, just thought I'd add my two cents.  :)

-Joshua Bailey

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 8:08 PM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:

Imo, up to me, we ship with minimal drivers to get to 2nd stage, and then wipe everything with the WDK sample project.

Or we simply don't provide a bootable all-in-one CD. We make two separate downloads and somehow make an easy-to-use "slipstreamer" that builds the final CD. How to do this at conferences or with pressed CDs is another matter.

I agree all of these solutions are ugly, and as Nuno says, also not guaranteed to work (in the end, it's up to a judge or jury to decide).

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:

Aleksey Bragin [e-mail] wrote:
> > To conclude, our existing fastfast totally sucks. cdfs does too. Fixing
> > them is a waste of time. Rewriting them - good project, but noone will
> > use that driver.
>
> So what is the alternative? Shipping ReactOS without any FAT driver? ;)
> The license discussions have already evolved to a point where we know
> that we can't possibly include the MS fastfat example code in our tree.
>
> What has happened to the FullFAT-powered driver project in the meantime?
> Some years ago, it was still praised in high terms and even ready to
> implement journaling on top of FAT
> (https://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2009-July/011902.html).
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Michael Fritscher]

Hi,

normally, I wouldn't have any problem with having drivers on a second disc
/ image. But FAT (and in particular cdfs) are core-drivers in my opinion,
which are needed almost every time - also for booting from CD for
installation. FAT is widely used still today, e.g. on usb-sticks.

What are currently the biggest problems in these drivers? If remember
correctly, our cache manager isn't compatible to the one in Windows, and
these drivers have workarounds, is it?

Perhaps the drivers could be written by a GSoC project or something like
that?

Additionally, what about NTFS? Is there a ntfs-driver in the MSDN-library
as is the FAT-driver? If not, almost nothing is won if we use the
fat-driver from MS: The OS- dependent part of the ntfs-driver need to be
written from scratch from us anyway, which could then be reused by our
FAT-driver. And hey, the filesystem part of the FAT-driver shouldn't be
too complicated if we managed to write a NTFS-driver^^

Best regards,
Michael Fritscher

[Alex Ionescu]

These are all legitimate concerns for a FAT driver, but keep in mind the
WDK library also has things like large chunks of the storage stack, the
input stack, the floppy stack, audio and network stuff, etc...

We could decide to keep our current FAT driver (or find a workaround), but
still implement this idea for the other drivers.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Michael Fritscher [e-mail]:
> Hi,
>
> normally, I wouldn't have any problem with having drivers on a second disc
> / image. But FAT (and in particular cdfs) are core-drivers in my opinion,
> which are needed almost every time - also for booting from CD for
> installation. FAT is widely used still today, e.g. on usb-sticks.
>
> What are currently the biggest problems in these drivers? If remember
> correctly, our cache manager isn't compatible to the one in Windows, and
> these drivers have workarounds, is it?
>
> Perhaps the drivers could be written by a GSoC project or something like
> that?
>
> Additionally, what about NTFS? Is there a ntfs-driver in the MSDN-library
> as is the FAT-driver? If not, almost nothing is won if we use the
> fat-driver from MS: The OS- dependent part of the ntfs-driver need to be
> written from scratch from us anyway, which could then be reused by our
> FAT-driver. And hey, the filesystem part of the FAT-driver shouldn't be
> too complicated if we managed to write a NTFS-driver^^
>
> Best regards,
> Michael Fritscher
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Steven Edwards]

Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have generic
drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download the
Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating Microsofts
license.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> These are all legitimate concerns for a FAT driver, but keep in mind the
> WDK library also has things like large chunks of the storage stack, the
> input stack, the floppy stack, audio and network stuff, etc...
>
> We could decide to keep our current FAT driver (or find a workaround), but
> still implement this idea for the other drivers.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Michael Fritscher [e-mail]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > normally, I wouldn't have any problem with having drivers on a second disc
> > / image. But FAT (and in particular cdfs) are core-drivers in my opinion,
> > which are needed almost every time - also for booting from CD for
> > installation. FAT is widely used still today, e.g. on usb-sticks.
> >
> > What are currently the biggest problems in these drivers? If remember
> > correctly, our cache manager isn't compatible to the one in Windows, and
> > these drivers have workarounds, is it?
> >
> > Perhaps the drivers could be written by a GSoC project or something like
> > that?
> >
> > Additionally, what about NTFS? Is there a ntfs-driver in the MSDN-library
> > as is the FAT-driver? If not, almost nothing is won if we use the
> > fat-driver from MS: The OS- dependent part of the ntfs-driver need to be
> > written from scratch from us anyway, which could then be reused by our
> > FAT-driver. And hey, the filesystem part of the FAT-driver shouldn't be
> > too complicated if we managed to write a NTFS-driver^^
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Michael Fritscher
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is
an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Magnus Olsen]

Hi
About  discussions about MS license. the question is if
the license agreement to restrict only to Microsoft Windows is valid in EU.
I do not think so. But only a lawyers can tell about that. Rest of the
world I do not known.

In sweden lest we got so call negative license agreement. That mean part of
a license   agreement is not valid for it is bad for user or goes
against any law.

2013/12/2 Steven Edwards [e-mail]
> Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have generic
> drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download the
> Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating Microsofts
> license.
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> > These are all legitimate concerns for a FAT driver, but keep in mind the
> > WDK library also has things like large chunks of the storage stack, the
> > input stack, the floppy stack, audio and network stuff, etc...
> >
> > We could decide to keep our current FAT driver (or find a workaround),
> > but still implement this idea for the other drivers.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Michael Fritscher [e-mail]:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > normally, I wouldn't have any problem with having drivers on a second
> > > disc
> > > / image. But FAT (and in particular cdfs) are core-drivers in my opinion,
> > > which are needed almost every time - also for booting from CD for
> > > installation. FAT is widely used still today, e.g. on usb-sticks.
> > >
> > > What are currently the biggest problems in these drivers? If remember
> > > correctly, our cache manager isn't compatible to the one in Windows, and
> > > these drivers have workarounds, is it?
> > >
> > > Perhaps the drivers could be written by a GSoC project or something like
> > > that?
> > >
> > > Additionally, what about NTFS? Is there a ntfs-driver in the MSDN-library
> > > as is the FAT-driver? If not, almost nothing is won if we use the
> > > fat-driver from MS: The OS- dependent part of the ntfs-driver need to be
> > > written from scratch from us anyway, which could then be reused by our
> > > FAT-driver. And hey, the filesystem part of the FAT-driver shouldn't be
> > > too complicated if we managed to write a NTFS-driver^^
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Michael Fritscher
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Steven Edwards
>
> "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is
> an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Steven Edwards]

Copyright law is pretty clear, they can control the terms of distribution
of their code and what it can be bundled with.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Magnus Olsen [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi
> About  discussions about MS license. the question is if
> the license agreement to restrict only to Microsoft Windows is valid in EU.
> I do not think so. But only a lawyers can tell about that. Rest of the
> world I do not known.
>
> In sweden lest we got so call negative license agreement. That mean part
> of a license   agreement is not valid for it is bad for user or goes
> against any law.
>
> 2013/12/2 Steven Edwards [e-mail]
> > Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have
> > generic drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download
> > the Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating
> > Microsofts license.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> > > These are all legitimate concerns for a FAT driver, but keep in mind the
> > > WDK library also has things like large chunks of the storage stack, the
> > > input stack, the floppy stack, audio and network stuff, etc...
> > >
> > > We could decide to keep our current FAT driver (or find a workaround),
> > > but still implement this idea for the other drivers.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alex Ionescu
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Michael Fritscher <[e-mail]
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > normally, I wouldn't have any problem with having drivers on a second
> > > > disc
> > > > / image. But FAT (and in particular cdfs) are core-drivers in my
> > > > opinion,
> > > > which are needed almost every time - also for booting from CD for
> > > > installation. FAT is widely used still today, e.g. on usb-sticks.
> > > >
> > > > What are currently the biggest problems in these drivers? If remember
> > > > correctly, our cache manager isn't compatible to the one in Windows, and
> > > > these drivers have workarounds, is it?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the drivers could be written by a GSoC project or something like
> > > > that?
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, what about NTFS? Is there a ntfs-driver in the
> > > > MSDN-library
> > > > as is the FAT-driver? If not, almost nothing is won if we use the
> > > > fat-driver from MS: The OS- dependent part of the ntfs-driver need to be
> > > > written from scratch from us anyway, which could then be reused by our
> > > > FAT-driver. And hey, the filesystem part of the FAT-driver shouldn't be
> > > > too complicated if we managed to write a NTFS-driver^^
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Michael Fritscher
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Steven Edwards
> >
> > "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that
> > is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is
an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Sven Barth]

Am 02.12.2013 22:05 schrieb "Steven Edwards" [e-mail]:
> Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have

generic drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download
the Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating
Microsofts license.

There is a little problem however: we are talking about the file system
driver which is usually used to install the system. I don't know currently
how Windows manages to update in use boot drivers, but we'd need something
equivalent in place for this.

Regards,
Sven

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

i like the idea of an alternate disk of "roughly legal" stuff (because of
licenses), it would be something like the "restricted" and "multiverse"
repositories in Ubuntu.

But, im totally against including not-GPL (or GPL-compatible) stuff into
ReactOS, because that could lead the project into a big problem.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Sven Barth [e-mail]:
> Am 02.12.2013 22:05 schrieb "Steven Edwards" [e-mail]:
> > Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have
>
> generic drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download
> the Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating
> Microsofts license.
>
> There is a little problem however: we are talking about the file system
> driver which is usually used to install the system. I don't know currently
> how Windows manages to update in use boot drivers, but we'd need something
> equivalent in place for this.
>
> Regards,
> Sven
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Steven Edwards]

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Sven Barth [e-mail]:
> There is a little problem however: we are talking about the file system
> driver which is usually used to install the system. I don't know currently
> how Windows manages to update in use boot drivers, but we'd need something
> equivalent in place for this.

I don't disagree that it is a challenge. But less than one of trying to win
a court case for violating the terms of distribution for someone else's
copyright.

Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special
dispensation if we just ask. Stranger things have happened.
-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is
an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

"Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special
dispensation if we just ask. Stranger things have happened. "

in that case, we should ask Microsoft before taking such a risky action.
And remember, no answer means "no".

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Steven Edwards [e-mail] wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Sven Barth [e-mail]:
> > There is a little problem however: we are talking about the file system
> > driver which is usually used to install the system. I don't know currently
> > how Windows manages to update in use boot drivers, but we'd need something
> > equivalent in place for this.
>
> I don't disagree that it is a challenge. But less than one of trying to
> win a court case for violating the terms of distribution for someone else's
> copyright.
>
> Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special
> dispensation if we just ask. Stranger things have happened.
>
> --
> Steven Edwards
>
> "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is
> an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Aleksey Bragin]

Old news, but a very nice one:
http://slashdot.org/story/13/12/07/1241221/german-court-invalidates-microsof...

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin

On 03.12.2013 21:32, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo wrote:
> "Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special 
> dispensation if we just ask. Stranger things have happened. "
>
> in that case, we should ask Microsoft before taking such a risky 
> action. And remember, no answer means "no".
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Steven Edwards <[e-mail] 
> mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Sven Barth
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
>
>     There is a little problem however: we are talking about the
>     file system driver which is usually used to install the
>     system. I don't know currently how Windows manages to update
>     in use boot drivers, but we'd need something equivalent in
>     place for this.
>
> I don't disagree that it is a challenge. But less than one of
> trying to win a court case for violating the terms of distribution
> for someone else's copyright.
>
> Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special
> dispensation if we just ask. Stranger things have happened.
>
> -- 
> Steven Edwards
>
> "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
> that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Nuno Brito]

Hi Alex,

Long time no speak.

On 2013-12-01 23:07, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> If Nuno would be accurate, then Virtual Box is in violation of the
> DDK/WDK/LPL license, because they are distributing the source of their
> vbox drivers which are based on DDK/WDK, and the vbox drivers run on
> ReactOS.

Attention, similar case but not necessarily the same. For example, there 
is the possibility of agreeing on different license terms with Microsoft 
and this means that either Innotek, SUN or Oracle as owners of vbox in 
past years could have obtained such agreement.

Also, license terms can vary over the years. Really necessary to see the 
file and under which license terms they were used. I took a quick look 
on the vbox web repository but didn't see any mentioning of the DDK at 
files like https://www.virtualbox.org/browser/vbox/trunk/COPYING

I'm quite sure that SUN did a licensing compliance analysis to 
VirtualBox when they acquired Innotek. Likely the same when Oracle 
acquired SUN. It is possible that some details also fly under the radar, 
we can't really know what is happening on their case without looking 
deeper.

Would you please point me to the files that are under Microsoft 
copyright on vbox? I can check which kind of license they have.
> In fact, any company that uses the DDK/WDK/LPL license would be sued if 
> their driver worked on ReactOS.

With several tones of gray and mist brought into this equation.
> So the real issue is to make sure we are clear that the drivers are 
> designed to work on Windows -- not on ReactOS.
> It is ReactOS that is designed to run Windows drivers, not the other 
> way around. Obviously, including such drivers in our:

In this scenario I see as a good thing that you are "boxing" the 
software where Microsoft is the IPR holder. I would nevertheless 
recommend contacting their legal department.

With kind regards,
Nuno Brito

---
http://triplecheck.de

[Colin Finck]

Nuno Brito [e-mail] wrote:
> Would you please point me to the files that are under Microsoft
> copyright on vbox? I can check which kind of license they have.

Alex was probably referring to the i8042prt driver that was part of the
VirtualBox Guest Additions a while ago (see [1]). But in the meantime,
Oracle has rewritten this driver from scratch under the GPL (see [2]).

I don't believe there can be a reason to rewrite a legacy NT4 driver
from scratch if not for licensing issues..

- Colin

[1]
https://www.virtualbox.org/browser/vbox/trunk/src/VBox/Additions/WINNT/i8042...
[2]
https://www.virtualbox.org/browser/vbox/trunk/src/VBox/Additions/WINNT/Mouse...

[Alex Ionescu]

I was actually talking about their miniport/vga driver, which as of ~2
years ago was basically the DDK samples with the GPL slapped on top, as
well as their i8042pnp driver (this is an XP driver, not NT4) which was
also similarly the MS code with the GPL slapped on top. Perhaps once Oracle
bought them, they realized that taking MS samples and then putting the GPL
on top of them is a license violation.

Note that this isn't what I suggested ReactOS should do :)

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> Nuno Brito [e-mail] wrote:
> > Would you please point me to the files that are under Microsoft
> > copyright on vbox? I can check which kind of license they have.
>
> Alex was probably referring to the i8042prt driver that was part of the
> VirtualBox Guest Additions a while ago (see [1]). But in the meantime,
> Oracle has rewritten this driver from scratch under the GPL (see [2]).
>
> I don't believe there can be a reason to rewrite a legacy NT4 driver
> from scratch if not for licensing issues..
> Colin
>
> [1]
>
> https://www.virtualbox.org/browser/vbox/trunk/src/VBox/Additions/WINNT/i8042...
> [2]
>
> https://www.virtualbox.org/browser/vbox/trunk/src/VBox/Additions/WINNT/Mouse...
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Sven Barth]

On 29.11.2013 20:31, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> To give you my position:
> Current FAT driver in ReactOS needs to die away. I am testing all my
>
> new code with the MS's FASTFAT driver.
> 2. Lawyers advice is needed whether we can distribute it.

Please excuse my ignorance, but wasn't there the plan to integrate a 
different open source library which can access FAT into a FAT driver? Or 
is the current driver already using this library? (I'm reading the 
ros-diff list weekly, but sometimes I miss some things...)

Regards,
Sven