20 Mar
2006
20 Mar
'06
4:06 p.m.
Hi,
Later this spring, Dave Probert's project will finally be complete with
the realease of the WRK to academia, which means that almost any student
such as I, Brandon, Filip, etc will have access to it. What is the WRK?
The WRK (Windows Research Kernel) is Microsoft's answer to Linux/BSD
source code used in classes. It is a special version of the NT Kernel
designed to be used with the CRK (Windows NT Curriculum Kit) based on
Windows Internals 4th Edition. It is a collection of about half a
million lines of kernel code, including almost all of the process
manager, object manager, thread scheduler, and other components
discussed in the book. The PnP Manager, Power Subsystem, Kernel Debugger
however are missing, as well as other specific code. This code is
located in static libraries which are linked in at the end to create a
complete kernel.
What of the license? It is the reason why the WRK is so exciting and
it's taken so long to come out (thank the lawyers). The license allows
viewing, modifying and *creating derived work*, as long as any changes
are also sent back to MS and that copyright is not misattributed.
Additionnally, the license explicitly permits the creation of books or
other reference material, including the presense of code snippets to
better explain something, as well as sharing information in community
forums. All this is allowed for any non-commercial or educational use,
including personal research. The WRK also ships with Virtual PC, the
build environment (similar to how we use QEMU/Dazzle for TinyKRNL) and
full documentation for all the Native APIs.
With such a wonderful thing at our disposal, how will this impact the
kernel audit (postively)? What decisions do we take regarding the WRK?
Do we use it? We can either use it entirely (ReactOS is, IIRC, an
non-commercial research project, unless you still want to "vanquish the
evil MS and sell millions"), but that would mean attributing copyright
to Microsoft which many here would puke at. Alternatively, it can be
used as pure documentation, which gives us all the freedom in the world.
Or, we can be our true anti-MS/MS-bashing arrogants and call the WRK a
heresy that should never be approached or used.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
20 Mar
20 Mar
5:29 p.m.
Use it in it's entirety. This would speed up the entire audit project. Also,
it would make a lot of problems go away. Maybe we can have a 0.30 ROS
distribution. I don't care if a tag line of: WRK copyright (R) 2006
Microsoft Corp.
I do not care.
I want to see a PowerPC ReactOS version. I am working on a design for a
Mini-ITX form factor PowerPC G4 1Ghz motherboard to run ROS.
On 3/20/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
Hi,
Later this spring, Dave Probert's project will finally be complete with
the realease of the WRK to academia, which means that almost any student
such as I, Brandon, Filip, etc will have access to it. What is the WRK?
The WRK (Windows Research Kernel) is Microsoft's answer to Linux/BSD
source code used in classes. It is a special version of the NT Kernel
designed to be used with the CRK (Windows NT Curriculum Kit) based on
Windows Internals 4th Edition. It is a collection of about half a
million lines of kernel code, including almost all of the process
manager, object manager, thread scheduler, and other components
discussed in the book. The PnP Manager, Power Subsystem, Kernel Debugger
however are missing, as well as other specific code. This code is
located in static libraries which are linked in at the end to create a
complete kernel.
What of the license? It is the reason why the WRK is so exciting and
it's taken so long to come out (thank the lawyers). The license allows
viewing, modifying and *creating derived work*, as long as any changes
are also sent back to MS and that copyright is not misattributed.
Additionnally, the license explicitly permits the creation of books or
other reference material, including the presense of code snippets to
better explain something, as well as sharing information in community
forums. All this is allowed for any non-commercial or educational use,
including personal research. The WRK also ships with Virtual PC, the
build environment (similar to how we use QEMU/Dazzle for TinyKRNL) and
full documentation for all the Native APIs.
With such a wonderful thing at our disposal, how will this impact the
kernel audit (postively)? What decisions do we take regarding the WRK?
Do we use it? We can either use it entirely (ReactOS is, IIRC, an
non-commercial research project, unless you still want to "vanquish the
evil MS and sell millions"), but that would mean attributing copyright
to Microsoft which many here would puke at. Alternatively, it can be
used as pure documentation, which gives us all the freedom in the world.
Or, we can be our true anti-MS/MS-bashing arrogants and call the WRK a
heresy that should never be approached or used.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
--
Dave Johnson
www.davefilms.us DaveFILMS(r)
Voice Talent
Writer, Producer, Director
Independent Audio Theater Producer
----------------------------------------------------------
Tired of a proprietary Windows on your computer ?
Use free ReactOS instead ( http://www.reactos.org )
8:32 p.m.
On 3/20/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
All this is allowed for any non-commercial or
educational use,
including personal research.
Because of that part of the license, it is likely that the code
couldn't be directly used in ReactOS. In my opinion, that part sounds
incompatible with the GPL, since you ARE allowed to sell things that
are licensed under the GPL. This means that using it as documentation
is the only possible use of it for furthering the development of
ReactOS.
-ShadowFlare
9:07 p.m.
ShadowFlare wrote:
On 3/20/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
I clearly stated using this code would make those parts non-GPL compatible.
All this is allowed for any non-commercial or
educational use,
including personal research.
Because of that part of the license, it is likely that the code
couldn't be directly used in ReactOS. In my opinion, that part sounds
incompatible with the GPL, since you ARE allowed to sell things that
are licensed under the GPL.
This means that using it as documentation
is the only possible use of it for furthering the development of
ReactOS.
I suggested that as well.
-ShadowFlare
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
9:12 p.m.
Use the documentation of WRK (it is maily Windows Internals 4th edtion
+ additional chapters, afaik). I think we shouldn't use use their WRK
for any other purpose then as a documentation (and only if it is okay
with the GPL and the MS Eula/license/etc.).
All other "alternatives" doesn't make sense to me.
"ReactOS is aiming to run your applications and use your hardware, a
FOSS operating system for everyone!"
Read more on http://www.reactos.org ;-)
11:11 p.m.
Klemens Friedl wrote:
Use the documentation of WRK (it is maily Windows
Internals 4th edtion
+ additional chapters, afaik). I think we shouldn't use use their WRK
for any other purpose then as a documentation (and only if it is okay
with the GPL and the MS Eula/license/etc.).
You're confusing the CRK with the WRK. The WRK's "documentation"
are the
half a million lines of kernel source code and the native api docs.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
21 Mar
21 Mar
10:13 a.m.
Quoting ShadowFlare <blakflare(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 3/20/06, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
That's my understanding as well. I - for one of my own projects - wanted to
make use of the Mosaic source tree; its license provisions are much the same -
free for non-commercial and research purposes, but not for anything vaguely
commercial. I'm still waiting to hear back from them about changing the terms
to more-GPL-compatible ones. RMS made it obvious that the GPL wouldn't
prevent commercial use, and Microsoft does know that at the very least - their
complaints about the GPL are more to do with it not being the BSDL, open to
all takers even if they don't want to return anything to the community.
Use the WRK as documentation.
For myself, I have no complaints about Microsoft adding to the FOSS source
code base; it's other things I worry about. ;)
Wesley Parish
All this is allowed for any non-commercial or
educational use,
including personal research.
Because of that part of the license, it is likely that the code
couldn't be directly used in ReactOS. In my opinion, that part sounds
incompatible with the GPL, since you ARE allowed to sell things that
are licensed under the GPL. This means that using it as documentation
is the only possible use of it for furthering the development of
ReactOS.
-ShadowFlare
________________________________________ _______
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
20 Mar
20 Mar
11:21 p.m.
If the licence meets the OSI open source definition AND we can use it
alongside all our exising non-kernel code (either because its GPL
compatible or because we can make an exception for it), we should use it.
Otherwise we shouldnt use it in ROS. That doesnt mean we shouldnt use it as
a reference source for the thorny internals bits without actually using
code from it.
I pesonally am curious to see just what code MS gives out and which bits it
keeps secret.
21 Mar
21 Mar
10:20 a.m.
Quoting Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
Hi,
Later this spring, Dave Probert's project will finally be complete with
the realease of the WRK to academia, which means that almost any student
such as I, Brandon, Filip, etc will have access to it. What is the WRK?
<snip>
With such a wonderful thing at our disposal, how will this impact the
kernel audit (postively)? What decisions do we take regarding the WRK?
Well, it gives us a legal avenue to check the Reactos source tree against a
comparable MS WinNT source tree, much in the same way the CSRG used the AT&T
source tree to make the BSD source tree, making sure it did the same thing,
only better.
Do we use it? We can either use it entirely (ReactOS
is, IIRC, an
non-commercial research project, unless you still want to "vanquish the
evil MS and sell millions"), but that would mean attributing copyright
to Microsoft which many here would puke at. Alternatively, it can be
Let Microsoft get copyright attribution when they actively contribute to
Reactos, not before.
used as pure documentation, which gives us all the
freedom in the
world.
We've got freedom from Microsoft now; we shouldn't give it up.
Or, we can be our true anti-MS/MS-bashing arrogants and call the WRK a
heresy that should never be approached or used.
Might be interesting to compare it to the MS WinCE Academic Shared Source
source tree, find out how the two branches of the same product do the same
thing.
Wesley Parish
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
3:13 p.m.
Use it!! Nuf said.
On 3/21/06, Wesley Parish <wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Quoting Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>ca>:
--
Dave Johnson
www.davefilms.us DaveFILMS(r)
Voice Talent
Writer, Producer, Director
Independent Audio Theater Producer
----------------------------------------------------------
Tired of a proprietary Windows on your computer ?
Use free ReactOS instead ( http://www.reactos.org )
Hi,
Later this spring, Dave Probert's project will finally be complete with
the realease of the WRK to academia, which means that almost any student
such as I, Brandon, Filip, etc will have access to it. What is the WRK?
<snip>
With such a wonderful thing at our disposal, how will this impact the
kernel audit (postively)? What decisions do we take regarding the WRK?
Well, it gives us a legal avenue to check the Reactos source tree against
a
comparable MS WinNT source tree, much in the same way the CSRG used the
AT&T
source tree to make the BSD source tree, making sure it did the same
thing,
only better.
Do we use it? We can either use it entirely
(ReactOS is, IIRC, an
non-commercial research project, unless you still want to "vanquish the
evil MS and sell millions"), but that would mean attributing copyright
to Microsoft which many here would puke at. Alternatively, it can be
Let Microsoft get copyright attribution when they actively contribute to
Reactos, not before.
used as pure documentation, which gives us all
the freedom in the
world.
We've got freedom from Microsoft now; we shouldn't give it up.
Or, we can be our true anti-MS/MS-bashing arrogants and call the WRK a
heresy that should never be approached or used.
Might be interesting to compare it to the MS WinCE Academic Shared Source
source tree, find out how the two branches of the same product do the same
thing.
Wesley Parish
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
6765
days inactive
6766
days old
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alex Ionescu -
David Johnson -
Jonathan Wilson -
Klemens Friedl -
ShadowFlare -
Wesley Parish