On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
sigh...
Looks pretty bad, actually. We're going to have to think about this. This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operating system unless the fundamental terms are changed.
CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if we don't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all those patents are expired now).
Things could get really sticky with digital cameras, mp3 players, etc...
I'd be curious to see how RMS would respond to this. Steven, would you care to run this by him?
Also, I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg. MS also has a royalty deal on the website for ClearType, and I guarantee they have thousands of patents that cover all of the obvious things. I guess we'll just have to deal with them as they come up.
A quick US patent database search shows 2,884 patents assigned to MS since 1976. On further review, it appears that every single one has issued since 1986, meaning that every one of them is valid and enforcable.
Joy.
-Vizzini
M$ appears to only be going after hardware manufacturers, ROS need not worry for now, if microsoft decides to target operating systems, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll have it out with linux first, and there will be a hellacious court battle before things get past that.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, the tech industry is slowly being torn to shreds with stupid ass laws. When will the madness end?
Vizzini wrote:
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
sigh...
Looks pretty bad, actually. We're going to have to think about this. This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operating system unless the fundamental terms are changed.
CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if we don't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all those patents are expired now).
Things could get really sticky with digital cameras, mp3 players, etc...
I'd be curious to see how RMS would respond to this. Steven, would you care to run this by him?
Also, I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg. MS also has a royalty deal on the website for ClearType, and I guarantee they have thousands of patents that cover all of the obvious things. I guess we'll just have to deal with them as they come up.
A quick US patent database search shows 2,884 patents assigned to MS since 1976. On further review, it appears that every single one has issued since 1986, meaning that every one of them is valid and enforcable.
Joy.
-Vizzini
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 17:07, Richard Campbell wrote:
M$ appears to only be going after hardware manufacturers, ROS need not worry for now
I think there's an alternative analysis that should be thought about here: MS is allowing hardware manufacturers an easy license, but is implicitly preventing any competitive OS vendor from using FAT. In other words, they're saying to Apple, and in particular, Linux, that they no longer have a right to use FAT. We would, of course, fall into category #2.
As to whether they hit Linux or us first, that is immaterial. They'll get to us eventually, and the value of the infringement will just have had time to grow with time value...
-Vizzini
Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
I still think we should aim to get one of the Linux file systems working under ReactOS pretty soon-ish. Then if the worst does happen at least it won't be such a major blow.
OK, so the bad thing is, we'd lose FAT and maybe eventually NTFS support too. The good thing is... What's there to stop users from just copying over the relevant system files from Windows NT/2000/XP when the ReactOS kernel is strong enough to support them? Sure, if we're running on a Linux file system it won't be a straightforward file copy operation, but it shouldn't be too hard to make a program that can shift a couple of files from Windows into the ReactOS partition, using the ReactOS ext2/3/ReiserFS driver?
This would swing in favour of Linux too, since people like me who dual-boot would no longer have to choose between no security/file system compatibility (using FAT for data), and high security/no file system compatibility (ext2/3/ReiserFS and NTFS.)
And again, we could have a Linux swap partition driver (I use one for my Win2k installation at the moment) and allow the user to select that as a pagefile location.
The end result would be that users might be less willing to install ReactOS for fear of losing FS compatibility with Windows. However, if ROS can be booted from a CD, maybe it can have an option to run a "demo" environment where it loads everything from CD?
Even better - why not just make the installer start up the GUI from the CD with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there let the user select if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first. I mean, once it's loaded, it's loaded, right? So you could jump into a useable OS and be able to do almost anything you can do with Windows. Maybe even allow network installation somehow?
Just a few crazy ideas ;)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sami Petteri Niemi" j82144@uwasa.fi To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a working ext2 driver available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to boot from an ext2 partition
Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
I still think we should aim to get one of the Linux file systems working under ReactOS pretty soon-ish. Then if the worst does happen at least it won't be such a major blow.
OK, so the bad thing is, we'd lose FAT and maybe eventually NTFS support too. The good thing is... What's there to stop users from just copying over the relevant system files from Windows NT/2000/XP when the ReactOS kernel is strong enough to support them? Sure, if we're running on a Linux file system it won't be a straightforward file copy operation, but it shouldn't be too hard to make a program that can shift a couple of files from Windows into the ReactOS partition, using the ReactOS ext2/3/ReiserFS driver?
This would swing in favour of Linux too, since people like me who dual-boot would no longer have to choose between no security/file system compatibility (using FAT for data), and high security/no file system compatibility (ext2/3/ReiserFS and NTFS.)
And again, we could have a Linux swap partition driver (I use one for my Win2k installation at the moment) and allow the user to select that as a pagefile location.
The end result would be that users might be less willing to install ReactOS for fear of losing FS compatibility with Windows. However, if ROS can be booted from a CD, maybe it can have an option to run a "demo" environment where it loads everything from CD?
Even better - why not just make the installer start up the GUI from the CD with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there let the user select if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first. I mean, once it's loaded, it's loaded, right? So you could jump into a useable OS and be able to do almost anything you can do with Windows. Maybe even allow network installation somehow?
Just a few crazy ideas ;)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sami Petteri Niemi" j82144@uwasa.fi To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
FreeLoader has been able to be installed and booted from an EXT2 file system for quite some time now.
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Richard Campbell Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:53 AM To: ros-general@reactos.com Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a working ext2 driver available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to boot from an ext2 partition
Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
I still think we should aim to get one of the Linux file systems working under ReactOS pretty soon-ish. Then if the worst
does happen at
least it won't be such a major blow.
OK, so the bad thing is, we'd lose FAT and maybe eventually NTFS support too. The good thing is... What's there to stop users
from just
copying over the relevant system files from Windows
NT/2000/XP when the
ReactOS kernel is strong enough to support them? Sure, if
we're running
on a Linux file system it won't be a straightforward file copy operation, but it shouldn't be too hard to make a program that can shift a couple of files from Windows into the ReactOS
partition, using
the ReactOS ext2/3/ReiserFS driver?
This would swing in favour of Linux too, since people like me who dual-boot would no longer have to choose between no security/file system compatibility (using FAT for data), and high security/no file system compatibility (ext2/3/ReiserFS and NTFS.)
And again, we could have a Linux swap partition driver (I
use one for
my Win2k installation at the moment) and allow the user to
select that
as a pagefile location.
The end result would be that users might be less willing to install ReactOS for fear of losing FS compatibility with Windows.
However, if
ROS can be booted from a CD, maybe it can have an option to run a "demo" environment where it loads everything from CD?
Even better - why not just make the installer start up the
GUI from the
CD with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there
let the user
select if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first. I mean, once it's loaded, it's loaded, right? So you
could jump
into a useable OS and be able to do almost anything you can do with Windows. Maybe even allow network installation somehow?
Just a few crazy ideas ;)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sami Petteri Niemi" j82144@uwasa.fi To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com
http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-%3E general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-%3E general
At 15.52 05/12/2003, you wrote:
see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a working ext2 driver available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to boot from an ext2 partition
mark my words: using Ext3 unomodified as the main filesystem *will* mean trouble
Agreed; the security model is one issue. For an NT clone, you really need a filesystem capable of supporting ACLs, among other things. Does ext3 support extended attributes? If so, then this could be implemented over top of that; as it could be over BFS (the BeOS file system, which is EXTREMELY fast due to its indexing of these attributes, etc.), or over XFS (SGI's filesystem for IRIX); either of these filesystems is industrial-strength, 64-bit, journaling, and worth considering.
SGI has released XFS source code as pseudo-open-source for use in Linux, and I think they allow use in other open-source systems, as well (not completely sure of the license any more). BFS is being rewritten by the OpenBeOS project (www.openbeos.org).
Something new and unique is also possible, of course.
--- "KJK::Hyperion" noog@libero.it wrote:
At 15.52 05/12/2003, you wrote:
see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a working ext2
driver
available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to boot from
an
ext2 partition
mark my words: using Ext3 unomodified as the main filesystem *will* mean trouble
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
===== ======= Frank D. Engel, Jr.
Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
At 18.41 06/12/2003, you wrote:
Agreed; the security model is one issue. For an NT clone, you really need a filesystem capable of supporting ACLs, among other things. Does ext3 support extended attributes? If so, then this could be implemented over top of that;
it could - *if* we want a sloppy and inefficient implementation. ACLs have arbitrary length and are in the vast majority of cases inherited from the parent directory: NTFS, in fact, collapses identical ACLs. And that's just an example. Just speaking feature-wise, NTFS has DOS attributes and DOS short filenames, OS/2 extended attributes, sparse files, compression, encryption, named streams, per-file object ids, reparse points and god knows how many minor ones I've left out. But that's just overlooking the by far biggest issue: what about user ids? Windows NT has globally unique user ids of arbitrary length, vs the fixed-length, locally unique user ids normally found elsewhere. Before you ask: yes, files need to be indexed by SID. Quota management requires it. Good luck implementing all of that with extended attributes
Well, it was just a suggestion, so granted there are some minuses, but...
it could - *if* we want a sloppy and inefficient implementation. ACLs have arbitrary length and are in the vast majority of cases inherited from the parent directory: NTFS, in fact, collapses identical ACLs. And
And the collapsed binary version couldn't be stored in a binary attribute? Attributes of parent nodes couldn't be checked for inheritance?
that's just an example. Just speaking feature-wise, NTFS has DOS attributes and DOS short filenames, OS/2 extended attributes, sparse files, compression,
various filenames and OS/2 attributes could be stored in extended attributes (easily), and even indexed (BFS) for efficient searching capabilities. As for compression, you can still compress the data and use an attribute to store the compression status; same with encryption. Named streams could either be dropped, or supported by storing in multiple files. object IDs could be stored in attributes.
encryption, named streams, per-file object ids, reparse points and god knows how many minor ones I've left out. But that's just overlooking the by far biggest issue: what about user ids? Windows NT has globally unique user ids of arbitrary length, vs the fixed-length, locally unique user ids
SIDs could be stored in attributes, and the attributes could be indexed for efficiency -- this is all supported quite nicely by BFS.
normally found elsewhere. Before you ask: yes, files need to be indexed by SID. Quota management requires it. Good luck implementing all of that with extended attributes
Compression and encryption are separate issues. BTW, the suggestion was to support a filesystem OTHER THAN existing ones, so expect different advantages AND disadvantages...
All of those features of NTFS imply added storage overhead, too, which makes it impractical for use on smaller volumes (floppy/zip disks, for example). Of course, this is true of many modern filesystems, which is probably the REAL reason that FAT is still so commonly used on those devices.
===== ======= Frank D. Engel, Jr.
Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
At 21.28 06/12/2003, you wrote:
Named streams could either be dropped,
unlikely. Some programs are already using them
or supported by storing in multiple files.
streams aren't files. Opening different streams opens the same file - i.e. the same node. What are you going to do, maintain a second table of nodes in a hidden file?
object IDs could be stored in attributes.
nope, they can't. They aren't attributes, they are identifiers: you can open files by their object id. What now, another hidden file to index object ids?
SIDs could be stored in attributes,
and this will waste any existing mechanism for access control and file ownership. What I'm saying is that you can use Ext3 as the ReactOS's official filesystem, just don't expect you'll be able to call the result "Ext3" anymore, or actually share partitions with Linux without a special driver. You can overload the meaning of "extended attributes" so many times before you have created a new filesystem
and the attributes could be indexed for efficiency -- this is all supported quite nicely by BFS.
Does BFS exist? I mean, an implementation we can use?
Named streams could either be dropped,
unlikely. Some programs are already using them
or supported by storing in multiple files.
streams aren't files. Opening different streams opens the same file - i.e. the same node. What are you going to do, maintain a second table of nodes in a hidden file?
That would be very similar to the way Apple, under MacOS < X, stored forked files (similar to multiple streams; but only two of them under MacOS - data and resource forks) on FAT volumes, to support cross-platform capabilities. So yes, that is not completely unreasonable. (they used a [hidden?] folder on the FAT disk to contain the resource 'fork', which was given the same name as the main file, in turn containing the 'data fork'.)
object IDs could be stored in attributes.
nope, they can't. They aren't attributes, they are identifiers: you can open files by their object id. What now, another hidden file to index
object ids?
Not neccessary under BFS: indexes are integrated into the filesystem. Just turn it on for that attribute. Searches are lightning fast with BFS.
SIDs could be stored in attributes,
and this will waste any existing mechanism for access control and file ownership. What I'm saying is that you can use Ext3 as the ReactOS's official filesystem, just don't expect you'll be able to call the result "Ext3" anymore, or actually share partitions with Linux without a special driver. You can overload the meaning of "extended attributes" so many times before you have created a new filesystem
Yes, and I don't wish to discount that. I was merely offering a suggestion on one way to avoid reinventing the wheel, if desired.
and the attributes could be indexed for efficiency -- this is all supported quite nicely by BFS.
Does BFS exist? I mean, an implementation we can use?
The OpenBeOS project is creating one, designed for their OS of course, which with some work, might be adaptable for use with another project; they indicate it as being in late beta (just short of stable; IIRC this is due primarily to thusfar insufficient testing to suit them), and according to some of their testers, it is actually faster than the original BeOS implementation, which was already lightning fast.
So this is a definite maybe; it depends on how easily the code could be modified for use with ReactOS.
===== ======= Frank D. Engel, Jr.
Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
I'd like to follow Andrew's "crazy ideas" with one of my own.
How about structuring a defensive IP policy?
I'll use a file system as my example but this applies to just about anything unique or novel in the React OS implementation. Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... makes it available under GPL like terms but also backs it up with a patent. Suppose that this new file system becomes very popular. Users, over concerns of their data being held captive by a proprietary media format, switch to this new FS. Microsoft, following a long history of embrace and extend (the kiss of death), decides to incorporate this FS as an "innovative feature" in a future OS release. However, the patent-backed licensing terms include a "gotcha" clause that requires any commercial entity to share patent portfolios (sounds fair doesn't it?) ...
Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
Even better - why not just make the installer start up the GUI from the CD with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there let the user select if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first.
PS. the Menuet OS, by virtue of it fitting on a floppy allows trial by just booting straight up to a Menuet desktop session.
-rick
A recent discussion with ROS_Guy on IRC prompted me to start toying with the idea of a completely object-oriented system.
I implemented a few test classes, and it was written in a combination of C and C++ (the main interface was C.) Basically you'd have objects and classes, as with OO programming.
However, the difference here is that files would be object instances, and to use a file you'd just "import" the object. The system would then automatically load the file handler for that object. By default, a "class" handler allows special DLLs to be loaded that contain a class definition (not in the C++ sense - it was a table of action names with addresses). In effect, a class in this case would've been an instance to begin with (an instance of the CLASS object.)
Anyway, the basic outcome was to be that you could effectively say "I want to open this database" and it'd find the database object (say, database.mdb), and then find the class type based on the extension (and maybe a few other parameters - like functions within it, as some apps share extension types, I've noticed.) This class would then be instantiated in a special way which would effectively subclass it.
This would result in a standard interface to the data within the file, as you could use the methods presented by the file handling class to manipulate the file.
To take another example, WAV MP3 OGG etc... All audio formats. All could have a common interface, so any program could read from and write to these files seamlessly, and the handler would handle the compression/decompression.
And to take things even further, a polymorphic file system could be employed. By that, I mean a file system that could change the file types "on-the-fly". So if you go to view all WAV files, you'll see WAV versions of your MP3s for example.
"Won't this take a lot of time and disk space?" I hear you ask... Well, no. The files wouldn't actually *be* files... They'd just be records pointing to the same piece of data on disk (the actual original file), with some information about the file, such as the original format, and what kind of file it is (eg: media/audio/wave.) Then, when an application accesses the file as a different type, it gets converted on-the-fly.
While this isn't really useful for WAV->MP3->WAV situations (eg, opening an MP3 in a sound editor, from what was originally a WAV file), it is more useful in the sense you could open an MP3 in Sound Recorder, as a WAV file!
And, with the correct file handlers, you could maybe open a Word document in Notepad (with a lot of filtering of graphics, etc. obviously) or maybe even open emails in Notepad.
I experimented with these ideas, and came up with a half-hearted effort that sort of worked but had a lot of limitations and was quite a kludge. However, should it be implemented properly (even just as a file system idea and not a complete OO system), I think it could go far.
A similar idea I had for the OO system was to have a socket handler for networking, too. So you could write an IM client that uses say, the MSN Messenger protocol handler, and that handler would have an identical (or near-identical) interface to the ICQ handler.
Maybe this would be something to look into?
Hello Andrew,
A recent discussion with ROS_Guy on IRC prompted me to start toying with the idea of a completely object-oriented system.
I implemented a few test classes, and it was written in a combination of C and C++ (the main interface was C.) Basically you'd have objects and classes, as with OO programming.
However, the difference here is that files would be object instances, and to use a file you'd just "import" the object. The system would then automatically load the file handler for that object. By default, a "class" handler allows special DLLs to be loaded that contain a class definition (not in the C++ sense - it was a table of action names with addresses). In effect, a class in this case would've been an instance to begin with (an instance of the CLASS object.)
Thise ideas are in now way "crazy". :-) Did you ever look into BeOS? They were using a C++ API exposed by the operating system. The whole system could be seen as an object oriented environment! I've got the book "Beos developer guide" lying around here. It's all described there.
Sadly they did not earn enough money, so the project died in the end.
Martin
Thise ideas are in now way "crazy". :-) Did you ever look into BeOS? They were using a C++ API exposed by the operating system. The whole system could be seen as an object oriented environment! I've got the book "Beos developer guide" lying around here. It's all
described there.
Sadly they did not earn enough money, so the project died in the end.
Hmm I used to have BeOS but never really used it - installed it a couple of times and played around, but that was about all I did with it.
The way I was thinking of doing it would be to have some way to store each class in a file, and have a file system based around the class hierarchy, like so: /fileformats/multimedia/audio/wave
Wave is audio, which is multimedia, and in this case it's a file format.
This would probably have limitations, but I liked the idea that you could effectively organise a set of classes in this way.
But basically, when the file system is queried for all *.wav files, it'd look at all audio files in a directory/folder, and present them as *.wav files. So, even MP3s would appear in the list.
Then, when you open the file, it would appear to be an instance of /fileformats/multimedia/audio/wave, and you could deal with it in that manner.
This has been done, and to an even greater extreme: check out www.eros-os.org. That project represents an operating system radically different from the ones commonly found now. There is no file system in the traditional sense: the operating system uses the disk as a persistant object store, with checkpointing areas: the entire system state is written to disk from time to time, so that in the event of a power failure (for example), the system comes back up with the same programs doing the same things that they were doing at the time of the last checkpoint; minimal work is lost, and this is done transparently from the perspective of the programs.
--- "Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood" lists@silverblade.co.uk wrote:
A recent discussion with ROS_Guy on IRC prompted me to start toying with the idea of a completely object-oriented system.
I implemented a few test classes, and it was written in a combination of C and C++ (the main interface was C.) Basically you'd have objects and classes, as with OO programming.
However, the difference here is that files would be object instances, and to use a file you'd just "import" the object. The system would then automatically load the file handler for that object. By default, a "class" handler allows special DLLs to be loaded that contain a class definition (not in the C++ sense - it was a table of action names with addresses). In effect, a class in this case would've been an instance to begin with (an instance of the CLASS object.)
Anyway, the basic outcome was to be that you could effectively say "I want to open this database" and it'd find the database object (say, database.mdb), and then find the class type based on the extension (and maybe a few other parameters - like functions within it, as some apps share extension types, I've noticed.) This class would then be instantiated in a special way which would effectively subclass it.
This would result in a standard interface to the data within the file, as you could use the methods presented by the file handling class to manipulate the file.
To take another example, WAV MP3 OGG etc... All audio formats. All could have a common interface, so any program could read from and write to these files seamlessly, and the handler would handle the compression/decompression.
And to take things even further, a polymorphic file system could be employed. By that, I mean a file system that could change the file types "on-the-fly". So if you go to view all WAV files, you'll see WAV versions of your MP3s for example.
"Won't this take a lot of time and disk space?" I hear you ask... Well, no. The files wouldn't actually *be* files... They'd just be records pointing to the same piece of data on disk (the actual original file), with some information about the file, such as the original format, and what kind of file it is (eg: media/audio/wave.) Then, when an application accesses the file as a different type, it gets converted on-the-fly.
While this isn't really useful for WAV->MP3->WAV situations (eg, opening an MP3 in a sound editor, from what was originally a WAV file), it is more useful in the sense you could open an MP3 in Sound Recorder, as a WAV file!
And, with the correct file handlers, you could maybe open a Word document in Notepad (with a lot of filtering of graphics, etc. obviously) or maybe even open emails in Notepad.
I experimented with these ideas, and came up with a half-hearted effort that sort of worked but had a lot of limitations and was quite a kludge. However, should it be implemented properly (even just as a file system idea and not a complete OO system), I think it could go far.
A similar idea I had for the OO system was to have a socket handler for networking, too. So you could write an IM client that uses say, the MSN Messenger protocol handler, and that handler would have an identical (or near-identical) interface to the ICQ handler.
Maybe this would be something to look into?
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
===== ======= Frank D. Engel, Jr.
Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
On 05.12.2003 19:50:28 Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
This has been done, and to an even greater extreme: check out www.eros-os.org. That project represents an operating system radically different from the ones commonly found now. There is no file system in the traditional sense: the operating system uses the disk as a persistant object store, with checkpointing areas: the entire system state is written to disk from time to time, so that in the event of a power failure (for example), the system comes back up with the same programs doing the same things that they were doing at the time of the last checkpoint; minimal work is lost, and this is done transparently from the perspective of the programs.
This description remembers me of Smalltalk: Completely object oriented environment with persistent objects.
Martin
--- Rick Parrish rfmobile@swbell.net wrote:
I'd like to follow Andrew's "crazy ideas" with one of my own.
How about structuring a defensive IP policy?
We have a IP statement its just not posted yet. Vizzini and I have been working on it for a few months. We are of course going to need to update it to cover this possible problem with Fat16/32 support.
Thanks Steven
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:57:07AM -0600, Rick Parrish wrote:
I'd like to follow Andrew's "crazy ideas" with one of my own.
How about structuring a defensive IP policy?
I'll use a file system as my example but this applies to just about anything unique or novel in the React OS implementation. Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... makes it available under GPL like terms but also backs it up with a patent. Suppose that this new file system becomes very popular. Users, over concerns of their data being held captive by a proprietary media format, switch to this new FS. Microsoft, following a long history of embrace and extend (the kiss of death), decides to incorporate this FS as an "innovative feature" in a future OS release. However, the patent-backed licensing terms include a "gotcha" clause that requires any commercial entity to share patent portfolios (sounds fair doesn't it?) ...
Sounds fair, but is not compatible with the GPL afaik. Which doesn't have to be a problem, i don't see why we need to use the GPL for everything anyway (for example, i wouldn't care less if we includeded a notepad which was released under the BSD licence).
Mark
Mark IJbema wrote:
Sounds fair, but is not compatible with the GPL afaik. Which doesn't have to be a problem, i don't see why we need to use the GPL for everything anyway (for example, i wouldn't care less if we included a notepad which was released under the BSD licence).
Yeah, that's why I used the phrase "available under GPL like terms".
-rick
At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... [...]
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect
ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it wouldn't piss off anyone.
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... [...]
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
I don't see why it would be illegal? Surely continuing to use FAT could result in more legal problems than to just "roll your own"?
What would be really good is if a new file system was developed, and then drivers made for Linux and Windows to enable the new file system to be used with those operating systems. Better yet would be to design a file system that would be compatible with the attributes and security descriptors these platforms use (if they are different, which I suspect they are.) How this could be done, I'm not sure. But it could have a more positive than negative result.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Campbell" eek2121@comcast.net To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it wouldn't piss off
anyone.
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... [...]
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Richard Campbell wrote:
ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it wouldn't piss off anyone.
I like the idea. Something compatible with NTFS patent free. But it surely will piss off some people. I know lot's of people that simply do not use NTFS because their old Win9x bootable disks can't read FAT. I have heard them say. Sh.. Win2k locked my hard drive, I had to format the drive in order to reinstall the system. :)). I think it could be solved if reactos give you the choce to create such bootable disks able to recognize such new filesystem. Also dual booting will be impossible without creating other partitions and that's bad specially in the current stage of ROS where people will start to try it. I beleive that the best choice is.
Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
Best Regards Waldo
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... [...]
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
It's a shame that both Linux and Windows have stuff that is "proprietary" to their file system, like the security info, etc. but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way around that.
If there was a kind of file system that would allow both Windows and Linux (and other OSes, possibly?) to store data (including security info) and be compatible with each other, I'm pretty sure that even as a standalone driver and not just part of ReactOS, it'd go down well with a lot of people, especially if it was "marketed" the right way.
Think of it... A universal file system that is also free.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Waldo Alvarez" wac@ghost.matcom.uh.cu To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Richard Campbell wrote:
ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it wouldn't piss off
anyone.
I like the idea. Something compatible with NTFS patent free. But it surely will piss off some people. I know lot's of people that simply do not use NTFS because their old Win9x bootable disks can't read FAT. I have heard them say. Sh.. Win2k locked my hard drive, I had to format the drive in order to reinstall the system. :)). I think it could be solved if reactos give you the choce to create such bootable disks able to recognize such new filesystem. Also dual booting will be impossible without creating other partitions and that's bad specially in the current stage of ROS where people will start to try it. I beleive that the best choice is.
Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
Best Regards Waldo
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file system design ... [...]
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
Waldo Alvarez wrote:
Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready.
-rick
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote:
Waldo Alvarez wrote:
Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready.
In the United States, liability for patent infringement exists whether or not you've been notified by the patent holder of such infringement. In other words, if you accidentally step on someone else's IP, they will be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it was your "fault". It's a pure liability - no fault is required.
Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer penalites (i.e. higher royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they were infringing. That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of manufactured items.
Finally, as I said before, both developers and end users are liable for patent infringement.
With these points in mind, I think we need an official policy of avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while retaining Windows system compatibility. If this means (for example) defaulting to a non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have to do.
-Vizzini
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Vizzini wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote:
Waldo Alvarez wrote:
Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready.
In the United States, liability for patent infringement exists whether or not you've been notified by the patent holder of such infringement. In other words, if you accidentally step on someone else's IP, they will be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it was your "fault". It's a pure liability - no fault is required.
In any case the law is already broken.
Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer penalites (i.e. higher royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they were infringing. That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of manufactured items.
Bad. That means distributing NTFS and FAT in another release is asking for more trouble.
Finally, as I said before, both developers and end users are liable for patent infringement.
With these points in mind, I think we need an official policy of avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while retaining Windows system compatibility. If this means (for example) defaulting to a non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have to do.
True. You are totally right!
I was thinking this yesterday. What about using an NTFS a little bit modified. In a way you can reuse the code written for the drivers already written and make the conversion easier. It won't be NTFS. I don't like too much this but could be a solution.
The other choice I was thinking. What about finding some company that already have the license to use the patents and put them in charge of the drivers in exchange for some advising in ROS. They will not have to spend a cent for it (except for the lawyer maybe) and will not have to write a single line of code. I'm sure many will like the deal, even if there is trouble in the future because getting in trouble could give them more money.
I prefer this choice as there will be not need to invent yet another filesystem, ReactOS will be more compatible and everything can continue the way it is.
The question is, How legal would it be?
Best Regards Waldo Alvarez
-Vizzini
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
If someone argues it's an industry standard and succeeds, the patented will be declared null.
Waldo Alvarez wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Vizzini wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote:
Waldo Alvarez wrote:
Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready.
In the United States, liability for patent infringement exists whether or not you've been notified by the patent holder of such infringement. In other words, if you accidentally step on someone else's IP, they will be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it was your "fault". It's a pure liability - no fault is required.
In any case the law is already broken.
Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer penalites (i.e. higher royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they were infringing. That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of manufactured items.
Bad. That means distributing NTFS and FAT in another release is asking for more trouble.
Finally, as I said before, both developers and end users are liable for patent infringement.
With these points in mind, I think we need an official policy of avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while retaining Windows system compatibility. If this means (for example) defaulting to a non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have to do.
True. You are totally right!
I was thinking this yesterday. What about using an NTFS a little bit modified. In a way you can reuse the code written for the drivers already written and make the conversion easier. It won't be NTFS. I don't like too much this but could be a solution.
The other choice I was thinking. What about finding some company that already have the license to use the patents and put them in charge of the drivers in exchange for some advising in ROS. They will not have to spend a cent for it (except for the lawyer maybe) and will not have to write a single line of code. I'm sure many will like the deal, even if there is trouble in the future because getting in trouble could give them more money.
I prefer this choice as there will be not need to invent yet another filesystem, ReactOS will be more compatible and everything can continue the way it is.
The question is, How legal would it be?
Best Regards Waldo Alvarez
-Vizzini
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
Hello Richard,
--- Richard Campbell eek2121@comcast.net wrote:
If someone argues it's an industry standard and succeeds, the patented will be declared null.
Please show me a prior court case where this has happend?
Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. Patent law is not a bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still due my fair share until the patent runs out.
Thanks Steven
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Steven Edwards wrote:
Patent law is not a bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still due my fair share until the patent runs out.
Patent law is not a bad thing but software patents and patents modeling social/economic behavior (ie. "business models") are insane.
That's just my not-so-humble opinion.
-rick
I regret i cannot recall any particular case, but IIRC it HAS happened. What we need is a lawyer.
Steven Edwards wrote:
Hello Richard,
--- Richard Campbell eek2121@comcast.net wrote:
If someone argues it's an industry standard and succeeds, the patented will be declared null.
Please show me a prior court case where this has happend?
Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. Patent law is not a bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still due my fair share until the patent runs out.
Thanks Steven
Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
I guess it has happened other way around. Example. If one would try to claim patent on �New means of human-computer interaction using hierarchical system of drawn rectangles� aiming to get royalty fees for every computer using windowing system, such claim would be rejected on ground that such system is considered to be an industry standard. Real example is CDMA technology owned by QUALCOMM. It is industry standard now and QUALCOMM is collecting substantial royalties.
All the best,
Yuri
--- Richard Campbell eek2121@comcast.net wrote:
I regret i cannot recall any particular case, but IIRC it HAS happened. What we need is a lawyer.
Steven Edwards wrote:
Hello Richard,
--- Richard Campbell eek2121@comcast.net wrote:
If someone argues it's an industry standard and
succeeds, the
patented will be declared null.
Please show me a prior court case where this has
happend?
Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this.
Patent law is not a
bad thing. If I develop something at my own
cost/time and it is adopted
by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry
standard" I am still
due my fair share until the patent runs out.
Thanks Steven
Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 21:33, Richard Campbell wrote:
I regret i cannot recall any particular case, but IIRC it HAS happened. What we need is a lawyer.
Regardless, this is a matter for the courts, which means we have to spend money fighting about it, which isn't cool.
Steven Edwards wrote:
Hello Richard,
--- Richard Campbell eek2121@comcast.net wrote:
If someone argues it's an industry standard and succeeds, the patented will be declared null.
Please show me a prior court case where this has happend?
Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. Patent law is not a bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still due my fair share until the patent runs out.
Thanks Steven
Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect.
KJK - your commentary is always direct; I like that. I can see where the FSF would not like this as it would require litigation to enforce. In fact, it does not fit their licensing model in which case it isn't really their concern. As for p*ssing off MS, well this *is* ReactOS, is it not?
Instead of walking in a mine field, we lay down some defensive mines. Let the big corporations tread lightly for a change.
I don't see how this would upset ReactOS users. I also don't see anything illegal. It's a carefully worded Terms of Use or EULA contract.
Food for thought - with a dash of salt.
Regards, Rick
At 19.30 06/12/2003, you wrote:
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect.
KJK - your commentary is always direct; I like that. I can see where the FSF would not like this as it would require litigation to enforce.
the FSF supports the "we are smart! use our stuff, and slowly accept our politics" course of action. Yours is more like "we are smart! we are evil! use our stuff, get in legal trouble and bow to us!". I loathe both, but the FSF's way at least has some ethical basis. Not to mention the whole "fight patents with patents" thing. Let's say it would raise more than one eyebrow
I don't see how this would upset ReactOS users.
did I say "users"? I meant "me"
I also don't see anything illegal
in the license you say "you're free to redistribute", to the patent office you say "they're really not". I know patent are enforced only if and when the holder asks for it, but this is stretching the law pretty thin
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
I also don't see anything illegal
in the license you say "you're free to redistribute", to the patent office you say "they're really not". I know patent are enforced only if and when the holder asks for it, but this is stretching the law pretty thin
Let me explain. Handing someone a software license and saying you are free to distribute *this* code is not the same as handing them a patent license and saying you are free to use this patent. One operates under copyright law - the other under patent law (no, IANAL).
One possible wording for the software license is a penalty clause where the violator must share their patent portfolio.
The patent protects the feature set implemented by the code. Suppose a big corporation wants to add this innovative feature (which could be anything) to their product but they don't want to be encumbered by some open source license - so they reverse engineer it. That avoids the copyright but not the patent. You could even license the patent with proceeds going to ReactOS, the EFF or similar organization.
This is a very rough idea but I hope I've gotten some people thinking.
On a side note, I should point out - for the record - that I am very much against the ideas of software patents. However, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire (while wearing asbestos gloves).
-rick
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:54:18PM -0600, Vizzini wrote:
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
sigh...
Looks pretty bad, actually. We're going to have to think about this. This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operating system unless the fundamental terms are changed.
CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if we don't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all those patents are expired now).
Things could get really sticky with digital cameras, mp3 players, etc...
Well, i think we're gonna face lots of these things, since we're 'copying' a OS of MS, which is patented in many more ways. FS is just a minor one, since it's quite irrelevant to the working of the OS.
Mark
Fair enough, they created FAT, they are entitled to file a patent for it.
However I think this is yet again bully-boy tactics by Mr. Gates and his cronies, attempting to squeeze every last cent (or penny) out of anyone having anything to do with technology they "invented".
Next thing you know, they'll be patenting the idea of services, processes, threads, you name it...
I really do wonder how possibly the biggest and most richest company in the world could need MORE MONEY?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Casper Hornstrup" chorns@users.sourceforge.net To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
Of course it is. Microsoft should be restrained. Bottom line. But they have strong influence with the government, so it's hard to restrain them.
Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
Fair enough, they created FAT, they are entitled to file a patent for it.
However I think this is yet again bully-boy tactics by Mr. Gates and his cronies, attempting to squeeze every last cent (or penny) out of anyone having anything to do with technology they "invented".
Next thing you know, they'll be patenting the idea of services, processes, threads, you name it...
I really do wonder how possibly the biggest and most richest company in the world could need MORE MONEY?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Casper Hornstrup" chorns@users.sourceforge.net To: ros-general@reactos.com Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
At 00.56 05/12/2003, you wrote:
However I think this is yet again bully-boy tactics by Mr. Gates and his cronies, attempting to squeeze every last cent (or penny) out of anyone having anything to do with technology they "invented".
well, they invented VFAT, as long as I can tell. I can't name any other broken filesystem on which long filename support was later shoehorned in a backward-compatible way by using multiple linked directory entries (ugh! that hurts!) for each file
At 23.03 04/12/2003, you wrote:
I bet it's not about FAT, but VFAT, i.e. long filenames on FAT. Am I right? Well, this is no news. I remember long filename support on DR-DOS was unofficial and not entirely legal, exactly because of this patent
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
I had a discussion with a patent lawyer who confirmed that anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, or ***uses*** a patented invention (device, process, etc) is infringing on that patent.
End users can and do get sued, and developers can get sued too. You can find examples of end-users getting sued if you search around a bit.
We need to formulate a policy as it relates to IP, probably pretty quickly.
-Vizzini
What if MS descides to patent their drivers-api so that one can't create anything that can use drivers written for Windows/their api. Then the whole idea about driver compability is down the drain, right? Just thought of this as an extension to the FAT patent-problem.
/ Jens
-----Original Message----- From: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com] On Behalf Of Vizzini Sent: den 5 december 2003 18:11 To: ros-general@reactos.com Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
I had a discussion with a patent lawyer who confirmed that anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, or ***uses*** a patented invention (device, process, etc) is infringing on that patent.
End users can and do get sued, and developers can get sued too. You can find examples of end-users getting sued if you search around a bit.
We need to formulate a policy as it relates to IP, probably pretty quickly.
-Vizzini
_______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
Interfaces are not about to be patented as far as I understand. Only functionality.......
There are some ways around this FAT problem I think but its going to take more time and discussion.
1. We need to try and support microsofts FAT/NTFS drivers by getting all of the Capitve patch merged. Anyone that owns a legal copy of Windows can still use FAT/NTFS on ReactOS/Linux even if its covered via a valid patent.
2. We need to get the GPL Ext2/3 Drivers working so we have a fall back plan.
3....... I'm working on this ;/
Thanks Steven
--- Jens Collin jens.collin@lakhei.com wrote:
What if MS descides to patent their drivers-api so that one can't create anything that can use drivers written for Windows/their api. Then the whole idea about driver compability is down the drain, right? Just thought of this as an extension to the FAT patent-problem.
/ Jens
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
-
Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood -
Brian Palmer -
Casper Hornstrup -
Frank D. Engel, Jr. -
James Tabor -
Jens Collin -
KJK::Hyperion -
Mark IJbema -
Martin Fuchs -
Richard Campbell -
Rick Parrish -
Sami Petteri Niemi -
Steven Edwards -
Vizzini -
Waldo Alvarez -
Yuri Urazov