Slashdot Mirror


Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World?

GvG writes "Yesterday, Ekush version 0.10 was released (binary only, no source). Ekush is a relatively new attempt at cloning Microsoft Windows. The ReactOS project has the goal of creating a GPLed OS that is compatible with Microsoft Windows applications and drivers. The release of Ekush caused some uproar in the ReactOS community, since it soon became apparent that Ekush was not much more than a repackaged version of ReactOS. Doing a simple string search for ReactOS on the Ekush binaries showed a number of hits. (Read on for more.)

GvG continues "Shortly after this was reported on the ReactOS mailing list, the Ekush website went down "for maintenance". Today they are back with a slightly altered set of binaries, which no longer contain the ASCII string "ReactOS". However, they forgot to search for Unicode strings... Ekush is not only violating the rights of ReactOS by deriving a product without releasing the modified source, they also derive code of (and are violating the rights of) Wine, FreeType and QEmu."

Larry Snyder adds "Additionally, at the time of this writing, their binary floppy diskette driver appears to be a near exact copy of the Windows 2k pro fdc.sys driver, with the copyright string and header changed."

348 comments

  1. Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is too bad that a lot of people confuse Open Source with Public Domain. That is the problem with free software that is open source is that people feel compelled that they could use it to "Make" their own product without any form of recognition to the original developers. While I feel the GPL is strict on a lot of thing that it shouldn't be but just blatantly releasing a product that is based off an Open Source project with a different license is just wrong. I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software. It is too bad that Commercial Enterprise doesn't respect IP Rights.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by dns_server · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I agree,
      some people don't get the GPL, it is fine to copy it and make your own verion of it aslong as you agree to the terms of the GPL and release thair source code it is fine.

      If the floppy disk driver is the same as microsoft's one, how long do they think they will last against microsoft.

    2. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is too bad that Commercial Enterprise doesn't respect IP Rights.

      Bullshit. That's an overly broad generalisation if ever I heard one.

      [Disclaimer: the following should not be taken to represent the views of my employer and is purely my own, personal opinion]

      The vast majority of "commercial enterprises" that respect IP rights, if only because not doing so can quite easily land you in court. Speaking as a senior programmer paid mostly to create closed-source web apps, I can tell you that I and my colleagues take IP rights issues extremely seriously. We won't even use trial software past the expiration of the trial period, or for commercial purposes (eg working on an actual client project) if the terms forbid it. Why not? We create software for a living. If people don't pay us to write software, we (eventually) don't get paid. Why, then, would I not afford other programmers the same consideration that I ask for? It's called "enlightened self-interest".

      Now, I appreciate that there are from time to time stories on here about such and such a company violating the GPL. I'm not saying that no company does so; regrettably, human nature being what it is, there will always be some that do so. However, to say that "commercial enterprise doesn't respect IP rights" is so far from the truth as to be verging on flamebait. Let me put it this way - some open source coders pirate movies, games, etc. Does that mean that I can say that "it's too bad that Open Source Coders don't respect IP Rights"?

      Sorry for the pseudo-flame, but this place really needs to tone down the anti-business rhetoric sometimes. Making money isn't automatically evil.

    3. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by randalx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think it's a question of understanding the GPL. I think these people are just crooks who wish to make a fast buck and couldn't care less about breaking the laws until they get sued. And since most OS projects have limited funds they are less fearful.

    4. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How come people bitch so much about stealing source code and not about stealing music (don't work for the RIAA, just an observation)

    5. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      no no no...
      other options exist
      waiting until it's a mature product and then excerising GPL copyright comes to mind. isn't this accepted business practice for some commercial SWD's

    6. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its worse than piracy. Sure you can resell burnt Windows CD's but the potential money made stealing a whole products source and releasing a commercial closed version is much greater. I hope buddy comes to his senses and releases the source code.

    7. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well, its the same as people downloading music off the net. why cant people just respect the IP rights of artists? how about warez sites? Same mentality leads to both except one is not flamed as badly on slashdot.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    8. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Sigh...
      I Guess I was to subtile in my joke "Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights?" I was just pointing out the same argument that Big Companies make for their comerical products to Open Source people and switching the roles around.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stealing music? But from who do I steal if download some music of a P2P network?

    10. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by nicolas.e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this particular case, I dont't think that they don't get the GPL. They deliberately violate it : they removed the strings from the GPLed code... They also appear to illegaly distribute a file which came from Windows, after having altered the strings.

    11. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of "commercial enterprises" [...] respect IP rights, if only because not doing so can quite easily land you in court.

      Surely this demonstrates "fear of punishment" rather than "respect for IP rights". If they truly respected IP rights, they wouldn't need the law to keep them in line, hmmm?

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    12. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the joke you were pointing out was that all slashdotters, despite their never-ending rage, are hopelessly incompetent. I assumed this from your repeated misspelling of commercial.

    13. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by gormanly · · Score: 1

      Funny, but adds to the confusion surrounding IP of various sorts.

      For the record, all works not explicitly released into the public domain have copyright protection. The authors may choose to license some rights under the GPL, BSD license, or v6.66 of the Microsoft EULA. Without the protection of copyright, there could *be* no GPL!

    14. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by jasonbowen · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, my experience has been that I've worked several places where a competitors IP was available on-site. That isn't anti-business, that's a fact of life.

    15. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by mpe · · Score: 1

      While I feel the GPL is strict on a lot of thing that it shouldn't be but just blatantly releasing a product that is based off an Open Source project with a different license is just wrong.

      It dosn't really matter what you think about strictness of the GPL. Current copyright law allows copyright holders to apply whatever licencing terms they consider appropriate to their work(s).
      >BR> I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software.

      It's not so much "as bad as", rather "exactly the same as". The wrongdoing in both cases is copyright infringement. N.B. Probably the closest thing to this in the proprietary software world would be counterfeit copies.

      It is too bad that Commercial Enterprise doesn't respect IP Rights.

      Proprietary software companies have been caught pirating other proprietary software. Sometimes such a company may activly persue people "pirating" software which they themselves pirated in the first place :)

    16. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well, its the same as people downloading music off the net. why cant people just respect the IP rights of artists?

      Assuming these artists actually still have any IP rights...

      how about warez sites?

      Actually what is going on in these examples is non-commercial infringement. Whereas the company involved is enguaged in commercial infringement. Often the law provides stiffer penalties and stronger investigative/enforcement powers with respect to the latter.

    17. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by eno2001 · · Score: 1
      You make a good point which I think gets lost in the shuffle sometimes:


      Making money isn't automatically evil.

      However, you need to add this to the end of that to be complete: ...as long as how you make money has no negative impact on anyone including your competition.

      That is the only ethical way to do business. But it's something that is not practiced because the system is built upon trying to smash or take advantage of competitors. In this case, the Open/Free projects that are being abused here ARE essentially competitors and the Ekush people are doing something detrimental to the Open/Free projects. This company is no better than the companies that snag Wikipedia entries and put up their own ad ridden "Free Encyclopaedias" without giving credit where credit is due.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    18. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      Well, its not really a valid observation.

      First off, neither is stealing. Its copyright infringment. Big difference.

      Second, the vast majority of people who download music in violation of copyright don't do it to make money. If they downloaded music and used it to press CDs and sell them, then we'd be getting somewhere close to what these guys are doing.

      As it is, the comparison is not really valid. Enjoying someone else's work as-is for free is quite a bit different (on a philosophical and legal level, at least) than
      1) taking someone's work and
      2) modifying it and
      3) selling it as your own
      4) without permission
      5) for your own personal monetary gain.

    19. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by m50d · · Score: 1
      well, its the same as people downloading music off the net. why cant people just respect the IP rights of artists?

      No it isn't. Distributing someone's work is one thing. Claiming to have written it, and selling it, is another thing altogether. As a musician, if you recorded one of my concerts without permission I'd be annoyed. If you recorded it, claimed it was you, and started selling the recording for lots of money, I'd be livid. Don't you think?

      --
      I am trolling
    20. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you happen to be a 12year old girl with RIAA type choice in music...

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    21. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by m50d · · Score: 1

      True, but that's because the GPL would be unnecessary in that circumstance. It's always been a kludge until we sort out copyright law.

      --
      I am trolling
    22. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooo, A smart one. He didn't spell a word correctly so thereforth (s)he must be stupid.

      Person: "I Just Figured out how to acomplish world pease!"

      You: "Oh, you must be wrong because you spelled peace wrong."

    23. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      They might be less fearful of a lawsuit from an OSS OS project, but if that floppy driver *is* stolen from MS, that's going to spell trouble for them, especially as they've removed the copyright string.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    24. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software.

      IMHO, it's even worse. Open Source software is given away so that the whole world can benefit from it. To rip off that software steals from everyone.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    25. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by artifex2004 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      However, you need to add this to the end of that to be complete: ...as long as how you make money has no negative impact on anyone including your competition.


      This is also wrong. Let's say that a sandwich stand goes up on a street. It meets all the health codes, but the food quality isn't great, and it's somewhat wasteful of resources. It's also charging a premium because it's the only place nearby. A competing sandwich stand goes up, with better quality and better prices. It's also a more efficient user of resources, which means fewer negative externalities to the environment and society as a whole.

      In this case, the second sandwich stand has a negative impact on the competition, by way of how it makes its money: providing better quality food at a lower price.

      Your statement would limit public choice through the artificial barrier of right of first entry. It would certainly stifle creativity, forcing everyone to remain at the lowest common denominator of technologies, etc.

      With me, so far? Okay, let's mix things up just a little bit more: the first stand is run by 5th-generation citizens who invented their regional accent and go to the local church, and the second one is run by recent immigrants who talk a bit funny and have prayer mats.

      Should this have a bad impact on whether they are allowed to have that stand and push the others out of business because they can offer better quality at a lower price? No. Will it? You tell me.

      Take this further, expanding it out to where the first stand uses local produce, and the second stand uses produce it gets from a farm it owns across the border... would that trigger the response that this sort of protectionism is good?
    26. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I hate HTML. There is no structure like C, Perl or Bash in HTML, so I always leave out tags and then end up with an entire paragraph bolded. Oh yeah... I also hate previewing my posts too. ;P

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    27. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say that the system is built so that the objective is to smash and take advantage of competitors. The problem is that those who do so are often greatly awarded and admired more than those that play fair. Example - practically everyone outside of the computer industry views Bill Gates as a great business man.

    28. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that I can say that "it's too bad that Open Source Coders don't respect IP Rights"?

      Actually, yes you can. For the longest time, MPlayer has redistributed codecs stolen from Windows. They're the real Windows DLLs, copyright strings and all.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    29. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      Do I see...a double standard? We can't expect software companies to respect the IP of people when people don't respect there IP in return. I'm surprised we haven't seen Microsoft/Photoshop/etc violate the GPL yet. Before getting on our high horses, how about we all go and validate our registration keys?

    30. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by elo_rannug · · Score: 1

      There are probably more Open Source Coders than those coding MPlayer.

    31. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by elo_rannug · · Score: 1

      I suppose you meant: 1) taking someone's work and 2) modifying it and 3) selling it as your own 4) without permission 5) for your own personal monetary gain 6) ... 7) Profit!!1 Did you see me take your work, modify it, post it without permission and get karma for doing so?

    32. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by elo_rannug · · Score: 1

      Stupid "forgot to insert {br}" post

    33. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Six of one, half dozen of the other. Remember Kohlberg's stages of moral development? Not everyone is at the same moral stage. If everyone was at step 5 (Social Contract) or step 6 (Principled Conscience), we wouldn't need to have laws governing IP rights. We wouldn't need laws at all. Now, a commercial enterprise is often composed of multiple individuals. The chances are very low that all of those individuals are at the same moral plane, let alone at the highest. So, we have a legal system that aims first at the lowest level, Obedience and Punishment, which you might think of as being the lowest common denominator.

      Further, the OP writes that his personal respect for IP rights is derived from the fact that he is a creator himself, and he wouldn't want to deny to others the livelihood that he himself enjoys. So, if anything, we might guess that the OP is at least at step 5 (Social Contract) and understands the Golden Rule (the do unto others rule, not the one about who owns all the gold).

      I've avoided getting into the subject of the moral development of corporations as individual entities as this is beyond the scope of a simple slashdot post. However, even if the management of such an enterprise were all at step 6, they'd still need to govern that enterprise in such a way that takes into account the lowest stage achieved by the other employees, not to mention the moral development of their competitors, if they wanted that enterprise to survive.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    34. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just a stupid linux user. What are these registration keys of which you speak?

    35. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by jcast · · Score: 1

      This is slightly untrue --- a system with genuine freedom of contract would be set up so that the GPL could be written and enforced as such. All copyright law does that other law cannot is tell you what the default license is if you don't provide one --- it doesn't create any options for what licenses can (or cannot) say that wouldn't exist in a pure contract regime.

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    36. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

      as long as how you make money has no negative impact on anyone including your competition.

      Sorry, but I don't think you understand the definition of competition on the economic market. There is only so much disposable income in the hands of the private sector, and if that money goes to company X, it can't replicate itself and go to company Y. So you could say that the opportunity cost of buying from company X is the product you could have bought from company Y. The two products are substitutes, and are, by definition, mutually exclusive. Given all that, how can company X gain without harming company Y? Simply by selling one copy of their software (or one of whatever product), they are essentially taking the opportunity out of company Y's hands.

      In short, competitors in a capitalist economy must harm each other, or they are not competing.

      --


      The power of Christ compiles you.
      A Random Blog
    37. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

      So.. here is as good place as any in the thread to post my question.

      You say that open source is given away, and for the purpose of the benefit of others. Then you complain when someon takes this code that was, as you said, given away, (which I'm assuming to mean 'given for free') and uses it. True, perhaps they are not modifying it very much, and perhaps the GPL still protects the original code, but aren't these people just trying to use OS code within the intended measures?
      For that matter, why IS there a copyright or a GPL on OS code? Is it truly open source if it's still protected? Are we supposed to somehow benefit from just watching the source scroll by our awe-glazed eyes and not actually touch it?
      I am, by far, not the most informed person on this issue, but this seems rather absurd to me.

      --


      The power of Christ compiles you.
      A Random Blog
    38. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

      Sorry to post on myself, but I just thought of this.
      People are upset because other people are taking their product, modifying it ever-so-slightly, and selling it. Isn't that like selling a batch of cookies, along with the recipe for those cookies, and then complaining when someone else bakes those same cookies (or slightly modified cookies) and sells them?
      From what I'm hearing, my analogy needs to add the condition that the original seller of the recipe, in the GPL, is saying, "Here's the recipe, but don't ever sell these cookies or I'll sue you (or whatever)."
      To me, that's one of 2 things. It's a very devious way of tempting the otherwise innocent into a situation where you would be able to sue them, or it's just plain naive.

      --


      The power of Christ compiles you.
      A Random Blog
    39. Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting model, and not one I've seen before, thanks for the link.

      My point was only with the OP's claim the vast majority of companies "respect" IP law for fear of punishment - attributing level 5 behaviour to level 2 motivations...

      Whether any company could have strong enough culture and procedures to act in a cohesive manner is indeed a much larger question!

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
  2. Is this another attempt... by NinjaPablo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...at getting purposely slashdotted for the purpose of testing some new server-side app like CherryOS turned out to be?

    --
    SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
    1. Re:Is this another attempt... by apanap · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they still claim they will release Cherry OS on November 25.

      As a direct result of the overwhelming response to our October 12 announcement, and in order to provide current and future customers with the timely service and attention such high-volume demand requires, MXS has chosen to extend the beta development for CherryOS. In order to accommodate those who were inconvenienced by the interruption of immediate access to the CherryOS download, and to further validate this breakthrough product, MXS will provide a free trial download of the CherryOS software, in addition to the purchase download on November 25, 2004.

      It'll be interresting to see if they will actually still try to release it after it's already been proven to be a fake.

      --
      Give me a job. Please?
    2. Re:Is this another attempt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the people at CherryOS claim that it's not a fake and that they'll show the source code to the guys at PearPC to prove it.

  3. Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by Wicked187 · · Score: 0
    I do not think this will become a viable replacement anytime soon, if ever. Still has the cool factor. But stealing GPL'd code is pretty lame.

    --
    Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    1. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by delta_avi_delta · · Score: 1

      Making a copy of a CD, and using someone elses code without citation are somewhat different things. The number of people who copy music is high. The number of people here who copy their CD version of "Brick in the Wall", change the tags (but not the music), and pass it off as their the result of their own creative genius is probably zero.

    2. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      No one is saying that copyright violation isn't wrong...the point is that it is just that, "copyright violation/infringement," and not "theft."

    3. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Or to state it shorter:
      There's a difference between copying and plagiarism.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that even the courts hold a much different standard for infringement based on whether or not the end goal was financial gain. Your average music piracy is not-for-profit.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    5. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by drakaan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You're confusing theft and fair use, I'm afraid.

      In music/movies/etc...you are granted fair use rights to create archival copies of those movies or music. True, some go over the top and want communist music and movies, but that's not necessary to allow you to make an mp3 of a song on a CD you own.

      In this story, there is an existing license available for others to be able to reuse some copyrighted material, but copying, in and of itself is not the problem. If the jackasses who stole the GPL'ed software had put the source code up for download (and given attribution to the original author and licensed their work under the GPL) there would be no problem with them selling as many copies as they wanted. What's at issue is that they are not creating copies in accordance with what fair use allows *or* with what the applicable license (the GPL) allows.

      Interesting, my ass.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    6. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by delta_avi_delta · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I always was a wordy bastard :)

    7. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by stubear · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation confers five basic rights to the creator:

      1) The right to distribute (making copies available on the internet is most certainly distribution)

      2) The right to make copies (there are some fair use exemptions to this but they are very limited and making copies available on the internet violates this as well)

      3) The right to make derivative works (this is most likely what is violated when you take someone else's code, rewrap it in another app and claim it as your own)

      4) The right to display publicly

      5) The right to perform publicly

      When someone takes code, rewraps it in their own app and passes it off as their own work they are violating 1, 2, and 3 mentioned above. The new app is a derivative work, it uses code that was unlawfully copied and redistributes it without permission. The problem is there are no degrees of distinction in the law which states violating numbers 1 and 3 are extremely bad while we can let you skate on numbers 2 and 5 if you're not being too bad. Certainly a judge can make a determination on his/her own as to punishment but copyright law is unambiguous here when it comes to whether a violation occurred. Basically there is no difference except that you are violating different rights granted the creator of the work in question.

    8. Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Except that a lot of people argue that file-sharers aren't claiming that the music they are sharing is their own work, and therefore it is not copyright violation either.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  4. Enforced Dilution? by torpor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could it be that these various randomly 'popping-up' projects, gathering press around the 'theft' of code from OSS projects, is part of a larger dilution strategy?

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Enforced Dilution? by wooby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that the tendency of people to steal is the more likely culprit. The "larger strategy" you perceive is probably, for better or for worse, just the darker side of human nature.

  5. Get the nooses ready boys... by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 4, Funny

    we's gonna get ourselves a GPL violator!

    Damien

    1. Re:Get the nooses ready boys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "near exact copy of the Windows 2k pro fdc.sys driver"

      we's also gonna get ourselves a microsoft eula violator!

      Oh wait...

    2. Re:Get the nooses ready boys... by blowdart · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine the confusion when this bunch get sued.

      "Hurrah" shouts slashdot "serves you right for breaking the gpl"

      by Microsoft lawyers

      "Boo" shouts slashdot, "they are stopped competition"

      cue explosions of heads all around.

    3. Re:Get the nooses ready boys... by geg81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't understand the difference between copyrights and patents.

      Many people here are for Microsoft enforcing Microsoft copyrights to the full extent of the law: only if Microsoft actually enforces their copyrights do people realize how overpriced their software actually is. But Microsoft marketing knows full well that the company wouldn't exist without widespread piracy. Selective and inconsistent enforcement by companies like Microsoft is a huge problem.

      What people get upset about is when Microsoft applies for patents on technology they usually didn't invent or that is blatantly obvious and then try to enforce those patents.

    4. Re:Get the nooses ready boys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has never used patents aggressively. 'People here' are against anything Microsoft does, from enforcing its copyrights, to moving into new markets.

    5. Re:Get the nooses ready boys... by geg81 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has never used patents aggressively.

      No, but it looks like they are gearing up to; they have said so themselves on several occasions and stated clearly that they intend to use patents against open source.

      'People here' are against anything Microsoft does, from enforcing its copyrights, to moving into new markets.

      You are trying to imply that people have a knee-jerk reaction against Microsoft, but that's a lame excuse. Usually, when Microsoft gets into hot water, they deserve it: they just do so much that is technically bad, unethical, and/or anti-competitive.

      Microsoft enforcing their copyrights by itself is not something people generally find objectionable.

  6. OK by News+for+nerds · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we neeed a Cherry OS for Linux
    Oh wait...

    1. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They overdosed on too much Wine, and Reacted badly to their Cherry being popped.

      :-)

  7. You mean they COPIED!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe that a company would steal another project's intellectual property and try to profit off of it. And certainly not one that is trying to be a Windows clone.

    1. Re:You mean they COPIED!?!? by BorisSkratchunkov · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? Microsoft has been stealing all sorts of innovational technologies for years. For example, they stole C/PM in '82 and branded it as "DOS". The only reason most computers don't run a C/PM-based O.S. today is because intellectual property laws were unjust back in the early 80s.

    2. Re:You mean they COPIED!?!? by evultrole · · Score: 1
      They didn't steal C/PM, they "bought" 86-DOS (Q-DOS) from Tim Patterson in 19*81* for $75k (overall).


      It's possible they stole code to "enhance" its compatibility, but DOS itself was not a theft. Just the code that spit back the DR copyright on the IBM supplied machine in the small court battle for DR-DOS rights.


      As to intellectual property laws, they didn't really enter into it. DR just didn't have the money required for a suit against a company the size of IBM.


      But, all things aside, it seems to me that having enough code left over that the Digital Research copyright stayed intact really means we are running a C/PM based system today, doesn't it?

    3. Re:You mean they COPIED!?!? by excaliber19 · · Score: 1
      WRONG!

      QDOS was made in 2 months of work by Seattle Computer Products (albiet after seeing CP/M). It was coded completely by hand with NO THEFT involved. Gates then purchased QDOS off of Seattle Computer products, rebranded it to MS-Dos and added a few improvements, then licensed to IBM.

      Get your facts straight

  8. OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS by isolation · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have already covered it here.

    http://www.winehq.com/?interview=14

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    1. Re:OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      OT Q: Are you using ReactOS as your primary OS yet?

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS by isolation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not yet. Networking will be done at the end of the year and then I will. I use ReactOS quite a bit now but most of my time is still spent in Linux.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    3. Re:OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      Ok..Thanks. Just trying to keep up to date :)

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    4. Re:OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Awesome! Congratulations; my compliments, respect, and gratitude for the work you are doing.

  9. Bangladesh by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Funny

    The website mntions that its designed for the Bangladesh market. I went to college with a prince of Bangladesh. He screwed me over on our final project for physics. Didn't show up for the presentation, then claimed that he had done all of the work I presented. Unfortunate for him, he didn't relalise that I had been consulting the professor on a regular basis about the project. So it was obvious who was telling the truth. I'm not saying everyone there is corrupt. In fact, the only problem I had with the situation is that he didn't even offer me a bribe of any kind.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Bangladesh by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well that's it then. Up until now I knew nothing about Bangladesh and cared less, but now you've posted that anecdote I hate everyone there.

      Nuke 'em I say.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Bangladesh by SilveRo_kun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bill, that was MY project, stop lying already >:(

      Prince Ekush of Bangladesh.

    3. Re:Bangladesh by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you think that's bad, check this out...when I was in college I was writing a program called Napster. I must have fallen asleep or something, because my roommate, Shawn Fanning, swiped my only copy of the code which was on a floppy disk sticking out of my PC!

    4. Re:Bangladesh by mikeage · · Score: 4, Funny

      Never judge places you've never been to. That's what they do in Russia.

      --
      -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    5. Re:Bangladesh by Dusabre · · Score: 1

      Why has this extremely tenuous Bangladesh link anecdote been linked up?

      You know I have my own Cherry OS anecdote. I once ate a cherry and had an allergy. I wouldn't mind, but it wasn't tasty. So I told the guy who sold it to me and he said he liked drinking beer.

      Now I don't want to say that all beer drinkers are copyright violators but they might be...

    6. Re:Bangladesh by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the old joke at UC Santa Cruz about Huffman coding.

      Everyone knows the story of how Huffman was flunking info theory at MIT, and his professor told him to solve the unsolved minimal-redundancy coding to pass.

      Well, at UCSC, H's students decided that H's roommate actually invented it, but H murdered him, hid the body, and claimed it.

      DISCLAIMER: I don't really believe this, it was just a joke that was circulating among Huffman's students about 20 years ago at UCSC.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Prince"??? When the hell did Bangladesh start having "princes"? Update your maps dude, it is in South asia and a (so called) democracy, its not in the Middle East.

    8. Re:Bangladesh by Speare · · Score: 1
      They do have copyright law in Bangladesh -- they signed onto the Universal Copyright Convention.

      That reminds me of the Dilbert where the North Elbonians said they would not return home with this country's secrets, because they signed the little agreement forms. Then the North Elbonians clapped and cheered at the joke.

      Some Indians are convinced that following the West's modern concepts of IP is a good thing. Some others realize that we in the West built our whole culture atop the borrowed stories and legends of any other tradition that we could find, and so maybe they should stand on the shoulders of giants, too.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    9. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So called? Well, at least the print media is really free there. They don't fill their pages with endless election dribble while the elected leaders of the country massacre thousands of children of a besieged country.

    10. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we in the West built our whole culture atop the borrowed stories and legends of any other tradition that we could find

      Er, what? Are you seriously claiming that, uniquely of all cultures the world has ever known, modern American culture is the only one that has ever appeared out of a vacuum and started pinching ideas from everyone else?

      Bullshit.

      All cultures have always intermingled and shared ideas. American culture is no less worthy for having shared more profligately than most.

    11. Re:Bangladesh by m50d · · Score: 1

      No, he's claiming that successful cultures including American culture have always pinched ideas from other cultures, therefore "IP rights" are a bad thing.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will you ever stop yapping about the Palestinian Authority?!

    13. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fascist USA, places judge you!

    14. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least the print media is really free there. They don't fill their pages with endless election dribble while the elected leaders of the country massacre thousands of children of a besieged country.

      Look just because more people disagree with you and your self confessed war criminal lost GET OVER IT grow up you should have gotten past this stage in first grade.

    15. Re:Bangladesh by booch · · Score: 1

      Mr. President, good to see you here. I would suggest that you finish up the current war in Iraq before starting a new one.

      Thanks,
      Concerned Slashdotter

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    16. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      genius - worth making into a joke

    17. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though Iran was next. Jeez, now I need to move all my stock investments to companies that will benefit from a war with Bangthedesk.

    18. Re:Bangladesh by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Hey, Prince

      I've recognised your title from one of your emails. So, how's your father? Still dead? I sincerely hope so for him if you've buried him already!

    19. Re:Bangladesh by Mecanico · · Score: 1

      given he was so comfortable with lies, perhaps he wasn't even a prince in the first place...

      --
      UgaBuga!
    20. Re:Bangladesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah dont worry - global warming will sink em all -

    21. Re:Bangladesh by mikeage · · Score: 1

      Although I hate replying to my own comment...
      this is not a Russian joke, rather, it's a reference to the following Simpsons (4F22, The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson):

      Lisa: Dad, you can't judge a place you've never been to.

      Bart: Yeah, that's what people do in Russia.

      --
      -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    22. Re:Bangladesh by Probashi · · Score: 1


      Bangladesh does not have any prince - there is no royal family of any sort. That guy duped you more than just your physics project.

  10. Gates and Allen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Gates and Allen have a hand in this....I can smelly their durty, little mutts all over it. Why, if I had half the might I'd show them what for and kick their middle eastern butts back into the democratic hell hole they come from. Grrrrrrrrrr

  11. This is bound to happen by piett134 · · Score: 0

    Well, this is something pretty common it seems like with GPL code. Look at how many spinoff's of WINE there are right now.
    Or just about any other popular GPL package. Cdrecord anyone?


    http://www.opine-it.com

    1. Re:This is bound to happen by Zelatrix · · Score: 1

      WINE is not GPL

    2. Re:This is bound to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not disagreeing with you, but the parent could have possibly been mentioning cdrecord-clone, which, as far as I can tell, is a fork by some people who really just don't like how Jörg does things. And while the differences are only minor, they do make it easier to use. :)

  12. Publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Given that this is a GPL abusive company that's little more than a scam and a fraud, why are we giving them free publicity on slashdot?

    1. Re:Publicity by k98sven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm.. How about:

      Because having thousands of people noticing 'Look! There's copyright infringement going on over at _this_ site!" is just about the fastest way to get a site shut-down nowadays.

      Scams and frauds are crimes best dealt with as publicly as possible. Do you seriously believe anyone is going to buy their 'product' because of this story?

  13. Always liked the ReactOS concept by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been distantly following the ReactOS project and even gave it a short test in a Virtual PC environment. It has a long way to go yet. It also has a tough uphill battle since you could (feasibly) purchase Windows NT and licenses on eBay and outfit yourself with the real deal, minus ongoing support from Microsoft.

    So is this a fork in the code? And why would you do such a fork at such an early stage? I cannot see that there is any money to be made from ReactOS or EKush yet.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
    1. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by isolation · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have had quite a lot of interest from embedded developers. It seems most of the world knows how to develop Windows applications so a Windows-like OS is very interesting to people that want to build a small scale device or application without the overhead of Windows or dealing with Microsoft licensing.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    2. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

      Good point on the embedded development. And you are right, there are many windows platform developers out there. I think that you are doing a commendable job on the integration of the Wine and React OS.

      I am not building embedded systems, I work with VARs and Integrators at large commercial companies and state government to set up applications that run on Windows platforms. So for me, (And this is only my opinion as you know), ReactOS is not ready for prime time yet. I would not be able to convince anyone in my line of business to bring ReactOS (or Ekush) into an environment where the operating system needs to be the least of our problems.

      --
      Have you Meta Moderated t
    3. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by isolation · · Score: 0

      Yeah I agree with that. Its getting better and more stable everyday. At the recent LinuxWorld expo in Germany we showed ReactOS running a few applications such as Quake and AbiWord for Windows but we still have stablity problems.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    4. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Someone might say
      "Of course you're having stability problems, you're copying Windows!"
      but I would never be that unkind. ;-)

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    5. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by jrexilius · · Score: 1

      Still, quite impressive work. As DOS and WinCE are still rather large shares of the embedded market I hope you guys keep going.

    6. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by bhima · · Score: 1
      I've been doing embedded development for about 20 years. And the group I work with hit this wall in 1996~7, There was no ReactOS then so now we all are POSIX sorts of guys. We spent 18 months developing a project using RTEMS which in hindsight was a bit to big for what we needed. Now we use NetBSD and Linux and occasionally we dust off the same home made kernel we've been using for years if we must be really tiny.

      It would interesting to how my career would have developed if ReactOS was available then...

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    7. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by isolation · · Score: 0

      This is the kind of think I think ReactOS could really help with. The fact that WinCE is free but not Free is a real problem to me. There are some big issues with porting ReactOS though as GCC only supports a PE target for a few other CPUs so you would either need to add more support to binutils and gcc or add a elf loader to ReactOS and use ELF on other odd hardware.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    8. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by bhima · · Score: 1
      The fact that WinCE is both really expensive and closed is probably a problem for everyone, If I spend that sort of money on anything I want source and I want support.

      When my organization was smaller saving money by spending time making home grown or open source solutions work was considered a good thing. Now that it's huge and I don't code anymore but wave my arms vigorously (AKA manage) it's clear that we're better off spending money on tools and talent on the front end. Still it's a very long haul to explain to the higher-ups that it's a good idea to spend money on code covered by the GPL (but worth it).

      On a side note can I install ReactOS on Virtual PC on a Dual G5?... I wouldn't mind giving it a whirl.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    9. Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept by isolation · · Score: 0

      ReactOS works but sometimes has issues on Virtual PC. The best thing to do is just download the latest iso and try it out. Its only about 6 megs. The nice thing about ReactOS is it still has a small footprint but needs quite a bit of work to get stable. The current networking laywer is having issues with http connections although other stuff seems to be coming along such as ftp, etc...

      If you would like we can discuss this more over email.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  14. So let me get this streight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    they stole code BOTH from Microsoft (modyfing microsoft binaries and such) AND from ReactOS? Gosh, talk about being chum in the shark pool at feeding time! It must really suck to be ashkor.

    1. Re:So let me get this streight... by Havokmon · · Score: 1
      they stole code BOTH from Microsoft (modyfing microsoft binaries and such) AND from ReactOS? Gosh, talk about being chum in the shark pool at feeding time! It must really suck to be ashkor.

      Helloooo! They _are_ Microsoft attempting to inject FUD into GPL and Open Source projects, duh!

      Please leave your conspiracy badge at the door when you leave.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:So let me get this streight... by kurokaze · · Score: 1

      you're one to talk about conspiracy badges..

  15. They need to clone a by michaelbuddy · · Score: 0

    They need to clone an english tranlation for their website.

    --

    ...::----::...

    I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

  16. Slashdot Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are we trying to slashdot pages of guys violating the GPL or what? The site's like taken offline right now man.

    Wait... That sounds like a good idea... no more than a version of http://www.aa419.org/, Artists against 419 scammers...

  17. they can keep the project private by LinuxRulz · · Score: 1

    Well they don't deny they used other project's code, but until they rewrite everything, they really should:
    release code or
    keep everything private,
    as stated in GPL.

    1. Re:they can keep the project private by cliffyqs · · Score: 1

      hmm.. so if they don't deny they used another project's code, but don't give them credit, they need to make up their minds. They could decide to deny they used other code and commit plagiarism. They could decide to give credit where it is due and say it is based on x project(s). They could rewrite and truthfully say they did it themselves. but they need to pick one.

      --
      I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
    2. Re:they can keep the project private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but they need to pick one.


      You missed the parent's point. The option "Keep the binaries to themselves and they don't have to do anything for anyone" is perfectly acceptable. Don't like it? Then don't use the GPL. Otherwise get over it.

      This doees not seem to be what they chose to do in any case since the article mentions a binary distribution. (can't check because the site is now down)

    3. Re:they can keep the project private by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Apparently they've been up to rewriting copyright notices. That is illegal. There is not a single OSS license which allows you to do that.
      (Except for public domain, which doesn't really count as a license.)

    4. Re:they can keep the project private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you using a C= Vic 20 to post to Slashdot or something? What the fuck is wrong with you and why do you insist on posting lines only three words long?

  18. Indian Outsourcing at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... and who can deny that the "roadmap" they worked so hard to develop (as commented on their home page) comprises PDF's of "Visual BASIC For Dummies", and "Teach Yourself Programming In 21 Days" ... the usual documentary output of any Infosys, Satyam, Wipro or similar programming team.

  19. Bangladesh by thing12 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They do have copyright law in Bangladesh -- they signed onto the Universal Copyright Convention. And they're WTO members, so that's even more restrictive when it comes to intellectual property.

  20. IT WAS ASHCROFT, HE'S IN WITH THE ALIENS by mcc · · Score: 2, Informative

    That wouldn't really work. Stealing from OSS won't dilute the copyright; legally you can't dilute copyright. What WILL happen is that OSS will gain strength because they will have successful examples and experience under their belt with defending copylefted copyrights from theft.

    I think if we're going to have a conspiracy theory, a slightly more realistic-- and more fun!-- one would be that a series of dedicated but unskilled open source programmers formed a professional suicide pact a couple years ago when the SCO case started to break off ties with one another. The pactmembers were to scatter into industry and independently begin projects which transparently steal open source code and put them into propeitary products, in hopes that these projects would be slapped down by the open source community and that the press would report on it. Once their projects were slapped down this would create positive press for the open source community and counter SCO's lie that OSS regularly steals from propreitary software and the nature of OSS makes this likely by demonstrating that it is, in fact, the other way around.

    This was all, of course, orchestrated by the reanimated corpse of open-source sympathetic Nicola Tesla.

  21. Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative
    I think the problem here is that people rape the GPL. Not open source. You see you say open source is not the same as public domain. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Open source only tells you that you have access to the source. It tells nothing about any other part of the license. A piece of public domain could just as easily be closed source as open source.

    With BSD you have far less requirements to give credit to the original creator.

    So change the words open source in your speech with GPL and you are right. Use open source and you show you haven't understood anything.

    Then again you use IP rights. Lets be clear. Open source and Free software are often mis used when instead you should use a license name like BSD/GPL/LGPL/Public domain/god knows what

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Informative

      "You see you say open source is not the same as public domain. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG."

      Uhh... only public domain is public domain. Open source is NOT the same as public domain. He's completely correct in this statement.

      GPL, BSD, LGPL, etc. are different licenses, true... but none of them are public domain. Public domain refers to a work that has no license attached to it because it was either released to the public domain or the copyright expired.

    2. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by B3ryllium · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, with BSD, one of your only requirements is to give credit to the original creator. No royalties necessary, though.

    3. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. The term "Open Source" is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative and/or Software in the Public Interest, and it has a very specific meaning.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    4. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by isecore · · Score: 0, Troll

      *grammar nazi*
      one of your only requirements? Excuse me? Am I missing something here?

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    5. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't some open source projects be public domain? Do you mean that there absolutely cannot be any intersection of the two?

    6. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Whilst tecnically you might be right, if OSI and SPI think that they can restrict my juxtaposed use of two perfectly ordinary English words then, to be frank, they can simply go fuck themselves.

      Phrases like that shouldn't be trademarkable.

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    7. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      BSD is for all intents and purposes public domain -- or it might be better to say that public domain is for all intents and purposes licensed like BSD.

    8. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by rpdillon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, just like "Western Union", "Internet Explorer", "Lotus Notes", "Word", "Excel", "Access", "Windows" and lets not forget things that are similar, too, like "Lindows".

      So, yeah, while I agree with your sentiment, deal with it. Don't take your anger out on "Open Source" of all things, try one of the others. "Windows" is always a good starting point. =P

    9. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by m50d · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying they are independent, which is true. Some aircraft are helicopters, but aircraft and helicopters are not the same thing.

      --
      I am trolling
    10. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      "A intersects B" and "A is equivalent to B" are totally different concepts. It's certainly possible for A intersects B and A does not equal B to be true at the same time.

    11. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by grahamlee · · Score: 3, Informative

      The BSD licence is nothing like Public Domain - with PD the ownership is transferred to the public. With BSD, the ownership (and hence any copyright entitlements associated with ownership) are still held by the author, except if copyright is assigned elsewhere (which is illegal in some areas). Even the much more permissive MIT licence - which says "you may do wtf you like with my software" - still implies control is retained by the original owner, and is not PD.

    12. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by modecx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF? In no way is BSD like public domain. Public Domain means that nobody owns the copyrights (or in that same token that EVERYONE owns the copyrights), or that the copyrights have expired.

      BSD is a liscense, just like any other. BSD is completely unrelated to copyright, except in that if you follw the rules of the liscense you gain the ability to use those copyrighted works within the bounds of the liscense--just like the GPL. Liscenses are like chisels, and copyrights are like wood, and in this way they are completely unrelated excapt for the fact that their use is quite obvious. You use the tools at hand to shape the wood into the form you desire. That's the entireity of it.

      If an author had complete ownership of the copyrighted material in question, he could liscense it in whatever fashion he wanted, even under mutiple liscenses, binary only liscenses, or what ever he desired. The ONLY ***only*** reason that BSD stuff can't usually become GPL stuff is the fact that so many people own the copyrights on it that it would be absolutely impossible to contact them all and ask for their (written) permission to use the code involved, and also the simple matter is that many people contribute to BSD stuff because it's BSD, and they wouldn't want to change liscense--meaning that you'd have to cleanroom engineer it all--talk about an excercise of futility.

      If these people molested a BSD project in the same way they've molested ReactOS (not giving credit where credit is due, as per the BSD liscense) they'd be in just as much shit.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    13. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      Windows is _the_ canonical example. I have no problem with "MS Windows" being a trademark, (MS Access, MS Excel, etc.), but when they chose that mark _they_ chose to use a common everyday word, priorly loaded with meaning. For them to claim that use of that word now infringes on their trademark is the ultimate in bogosity.

      Lotus Notes is a curious one - in the context of software, lotus plants have no meaning, and therefore even though both lotus and notes are common words, I'd say they can have "Lotus Notes", the whole phrase, as a trademark. "Notes", however, they can't have - the word already has a prior meaning (which is one of the reasons why they adopted the term).

      None of this is a legal statement, this is purely brainstem 'in my ideal world' think.

      However, I like to think that my brainstem has more common sense than much that pertains to laws. (*cough* decss *cough*).

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    14. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think you're thinking of the old BSD license. The current BSD license does not require retention of the original copyright/credit notices.

      Note, however, that apparently some projects prefer to continue to release under the old BSD license, which is why many people are understandably confused.

    15. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking about the 'old' BSD license, which is still used by some projects, but the current BSD license no longer contains that requirement.

    16. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      In other words, it functions like software in the Public Domain.

      Can I take PD software and incorporate into a Closed source product? Yes.

      Can I do the same with BSD? Yes.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    17. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you take PD software and incorporate it into a Closed Source product and not give any consideration to the bloke that origionally wrote it? Yes.

      Can you do the same with BSD? No.

      The function is the same: software someone else wrote is intergrated into something else. But the implication is different. You can take PD stuff and express it as your own, but you cannot legally do the same with anything that's actively copyrighted.

    18. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1
      The current BSD license does not require retention of the original copyright/credit notices.

      Yes it does. You're thinking of the advertising clause, which was deleted some time ago.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    19. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by jonadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      > The ONLY ***only*** reason that BSD stuff can't usually become GPL stuff is
      > the fact that so many people own the copyrights on it that it would be
      > absolutely impossible to contact them all and ask for their (written)
      > permission to use the code involved

      You were doing okay up to this point, but here you got confused. The BSD
      license actually gives you permission to use the work, provided you follow
      all the provisions of the license. As it turns out, relicensing under the
      GPL does not violate any of the provisions of the BSD license. (There was
      at one time an old version of the BSD license for which this was not true,
      but that was a long time ago and is of little relevance today.)

      What you cannot do is go the other way, including or linking against GPLed
      code and releasing under the BSD license. The BSD license allows things that
      the GPL does not allow, so relicensing GPLed code under the BSD license does
      not follow all of the requirements of the GPL -- so you can't do it.

      This is where the GPL gets its "viral" epithet: if you mix BSD and GPL
      stuff together, the result can be released under the GPL, but it cannot
      be released under the BSD license; to release under the BSD license, the
      GPL parts have to be replaced with BSD code, or code licensed in a way
      that is compatible with the BSD license.

      > If these people molested a BSD project in the same way they've molested
      > ReactOS (not giving credit where credit is due, as per the BSD liscense)
      > they'd be in just as much shit.

      Indeed, there was a fiasco not very long ago wherein someone released a
      "new" BSD distribution (I no longer recall the name of it) that was
      essentially one of the existing ones (I don't recall which; might've been
      NetBSD, but I'm not sure) with the copyright statements changed and the
      references to the previous distribution removed. They were not permitted
      to continue distributing this, because it violated the terms of the BSD
      license.

      However, if they had followed the license by retaining the copyright
      statements and so on and so forth, they then would have been permitted under
      the terms of the license to distribute the resulting product.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    20. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

      *grammar.. uh.. spitfire pilot?*
      The gp phrase in question was:
      "one of your only requirements".

      It is acceptable to say this, because, if we consider a small group of requirements that are set apart from all possible requirements, they will be the only requirements needed.
      For example, the phrase could be:
      "one of your only four requirements".
      Leaving out the number four only changes the meaning of the phrase to mean that the exact number is not known (and may not need to be known).

      --


      The power of Christ compiles you.
      A Random Blog
    21. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by modecx · · Score: 1

      Ahhh soo. You're right, of course.

      Dyslexia! Caffiene! SCO! Myriad of open source licensing options! GO NERD! With your powers combined I am Captain Confused Geek!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    22. Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin! by grahamlee · · Score: 1
      I think you're thinking of the old BSD license.

      No; the current BSD licence has the concept of ownership too - if I didn't own my code, htf would I licence it? Go and read the licence and observe that ownership is required.

  22. Not just a problem for free software. by twitter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software.

    "Ripping off" free software is actually worse because it confuses the message of free software. The message of free software is that free people can co-operate to make tools for themselves that work. A ripped free software tool with "improvements" directly undermines that message by trying to convince people that they need some closed software to make their lives easier. Typically, the ripped version is inferior but the money involved will create a stream of advertising that says otherwise. Public education on the value, cause and workings of free software is an ongoing project.

    It is too bad that a lot of people confuse Open Source with Public Domain.

    No, these bozos knew what they were doing and did not limit their "theft" to free software. They knew that they were violating licenses for free software just as much as they knew they were violating M$'s license by distributing their floppy driver. Since having the obvious string matches pointed out, they have tried to replace them without bothering to replace binaries or release source code. As the easiest thing to do would be to release source code, these people are up to no good and know it.

    We shall see if they come clean. If they don't and M$ does not clean their clock, we can draw further conclusions.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  23. I hope they speak C better than English by karmaflux · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft Windows is the most acknowledged operating system throughout the world. But it is highly dominated artifact to the people and MS have a monopoly to our desktop. Due to the fact, EKUSH is a lineup effort to the Win32 platform, an alternative OS to run your existing windows applications. Our focus is to build the alternative platform; a brilliant Operating System for our community.

    Now THAT is a professional blurb -- wait here while I get my credit card!

    --

    REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    1. Re:I hope they speak C better than English by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently they weren't fluent in C enough to write their own. ;)

    2. Re:I hope they speak C better than English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any native Bangla speaker who also knows English would tell you that this is what it looks like when someone translates Bangla literally into English, keeping Bangla idiom and syntax. For that matter, this can happen to speakers of any language.

      I guess my point is, in C, there is no Bangla vs English idiom, so you can relax on that point :-)

  24. Re:Not a bad idea by isolation · · Score: 5, Informative

    Slow???

    We have third party drivers loading, a explorer.exe clone, application support such as OpenOffice for Win32 loading not to mention we have made replacement apps for regedit, taskmgr, and a Windows like install system. Whats slow about ReactOS development?

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  25. Cloning Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Why clone mediocracy?

    Honda didn't try to clone the Oldsmobile Cutlass. that sold about 400,000 cars a year in the early 80's.

    1. Re:Cloning Windows? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a clone, it's an OS that is trying to be Windows binary compatible.

      You could say they're trying to make a better "Windows".

      I know we all love linux here, but IMO the only way to take desktops away from MSFT is to replace them with something thats compatible: something that runs all the same apps and games and supports all the same hardware by way of the same drivers.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Cloning Windows? by cliffyqs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. It's the only way to get average users away from the MS they've been taught is the One True OS. But you need more than that; I remember setting up OS/2 in a lab in college; it was more stable and ran Windows (3.x) apps better than windows did. It didn't let an app crash windows and it didn't let Windows crash os/2. It was a great product. It died penniless and alone like certain literary figures in part because it didn't have a good advertising agent. if you build a better, faster, cheaper, rock-solid OS, they will come -- if they know about it, if it looks familiar, and if it runs what they have exactly like their old OS, but BETTER. But it has to be better as in "noticeable to Joe Average User" better, not as in "geeks know it's more stable" or "some people know non-monopoly is better.

      --
      I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
    3. Re:Cloning Windows? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      OS/2 died, in part, because in those days, IBM was the "big evil computer monopoly", and everyone in the industry couldn't wait to stick it to em by using Microsoft's cheaper alternative. That, and all the killer apps were written for Windows, not OS/2 so there was really no compelling reason (from a business POV) to pay more for it.

      Windows could die the same way.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:Cloning Windows? by isolation · · Score: 0

      The Windows 95 SDK/DDK did not allow you to develop Windos and OS/2 applications according to what I have heard about the non-discloser clause. This was part of what killed OS/2 development.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    5. Re:Cloning Windows? by XO · · Score: 1

      it could, but I highly doubt Windows could be killed in that way - How many YEARS could Microsoft give away Windows for, without Bill even noticing a dent in his fortune?

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Bang Ladesh? by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who is Ladesh and why does everyone say to bang her?

    1. Re:Bang Ladesh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it sounds exactly like one of those names too.

      Please let me know what kind of medication you must be on to mod that opinion "flamebait". It might be fun to test it some day.

  28. Anonymous source within the company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was quoted saying "we don't want to end up as bartenders".

    1. Re:Anonymous source within the company... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1, Funny

      Eeeugh! Who would want to order drinks in their bar? They'd fill your glass from other glasses, puddles on the bar and slop from the taps-- IF you're lucky!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  29. sigh... by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...There is a huge difference here. People don't download the latest *insert crappy pop artist here* and claim that they wrote that song.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  30. Cool by kff322 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Looks cool like a nice window alternative although I cant access there site it appears as if they were SLASHDOTED!!!

  31. Not the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm currently persuing the release of GPL code from two major companies in the communications arena (the linux kernel in both cases). So far, both are giving me a runaround, and not giving me anything. These are big fish, however, and have the pockets to make it worthwhile to go after for this.

  32. Report them to Microsoft by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for fdc.sys. They'll stomp them but good. And we'll get GPL enforcement as a free side-effect!

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Report them to Microsoft by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      So, do we cheer while Microsoft does that, or should be like this guy?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Report them to Microsoft by KJKHyperion · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't see any heads rolling for this, so don't hold your breath. Yes, it is a project based in Eastern Europe for an illegal Windows 2000 distribution compiled from the leaked sources. Yes, it's on SourceForge. Yes, I did report this to the SourceForge administrators. And yes, it's still there

      KJK::Hyperion, ReactOS developer
      --

      Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)

  33. How dumb can they be? by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You'd think that, maybe, by the time they're compitent enough to even attempt to pull shit like this people would understand such "1337" tools as strings and grep.

    Not only are they crooks they're no more than script kiddies . . . . .

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    1. Re:How dumb can they be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This coming from a person who has downloaded MP3's and movies, correct?

      Right--go crawl back to your hole.

    2. Re:How dumb can they be? by m50d · · Score: 1

      But he hasn't been caught for it, possibly because he hasn't tried to pass them off as his own work. Which makes him far smarter than these guys, which is all he claimed, not that he was morally better or anything.

      --
      I am trolling
  34. I am the parent poster and I agree by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am the parent poster and I agree.
    I develop custom software for a lot of companies and making sure that I follow the licenes is very dear to me because that way the company feels comfortable, with me and feels secure using the project. If I use a GPL Library I tell them that I am using a GPL library and if anyone want the source to this program you will have to release it to them. Which isn't an issue for most companies because their Data is far more important then the sourcecode use to manipulate it.

    BTW.
    I was actually making a little joke to conflect Microsoft and SCO who accuse Open Source Programmers not Respecting IP which is just the same gross generalisation.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I develop custom software for a lot of companies and making sure that I follow the licenes is very dear to me because that way the company feels comfortable, with me and feels secure using the project. If I use a GPL Library I tell them that I am using a GPL library and if anyone want the source to this program you will have to release it to them.

      Maybe you were just being sloppy with your terminology, but what you wrote is incorrect.

      If you incorporate GPL'd code into custom software, the only people who are entitled to the source code of the program are the entities who receive the binary of the program -- not just anyone who wants the source.

      Since custom software is typically developed on contract for internal use and not resale or redistribution, it is unlikely that anyone else beyond your original client will have standing to call for the source code.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by runderwo · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you incorporate GPL'd code into custom software, the only people who are entitled to the source code of the program are the entities who receive the binary of the program -- not just anyone who wants the source.
      Wrong. Have you read the GPL? See section 3b. If you do not distribute the source to the recipient of the binary, you must provide offer valid for any third party to request the source from you. So yes, other folks can very well be entitled to the source code of the program under the GPL if you don't give your customer the source up front.
    3. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think nits are being picked here, since I think his point was about not distributing the software, which is what I believe the original case of custom software was describing.

      Here's the deal: If you don't distribute binaries to any third party, then you do not have to offer the source to any third party.

      If you do distribute binaries to any third party, then you do have to offer the source to any third party.

      Being able to keep your program to yourself is a fundamental right the GPL doesn't violate. It doesn't force you to distribute your program, it only forces you to distribute source when/if you distribute your program.

      You probably agree with what I've said, so I hope everyone is clear now.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong. Have you read the GPL? See section 3b. If you do not distribute the source to the recipient of the binary, you must provide offer valid for any third party to request the source from you.

      As a developer of custom software myself, it did not even occur to me that a client would accept an executable without full source too. I suppose such suckers do exist somewhere out there, so I'll give you that.

      However unlikely such a hypothetical situation might be in real life, if the developer does not satisfy their obligation under section 3a (i.e. provide source to the client) then yes, the develoepr (not the client) would then have to provide source to anyone who asked for it, for three years.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I think you're misinterpreting that. I read it as meaning that if you distribute the binary without source, then anyone who receives the binary no matter who they receive it from may request the source from you, and you must comply with the request.

      That is, if I give you the binary but not the source, then you give the binary to a friend, your friend can ask me for the source. If I give you the binary and the source together, and you give just the binary to a friend, then if your friend asks me for the source, I'm allowed to tell him to ask you for it.

      I certainly do not read it as meaning that if you distribute the binary and source seperately, then anyone in the world can demand the source from you. Of course, IANAL, yadda yadda.

    6. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by julesh · · Score: 1

      [...] you must provide offer valid for any third party to request the source from you

      OK. I've done this for a customised version of an item of GPL software (that I'm not going to specify for you) for a client (who I'm not going to specify). They have the offer, as required by the GPL.

      If you can produce a copy of that offer, I'll give you a copy of the source code. That's what the offer says, anyway.

      What, don't you have a copy of the offer? Sorry, no sourcecode then.

      (BTW: if you have a binary, you ought to have a copy of the offer... the redistributor is obliged to pass on a copy to you, if he doesn't pass on the source code himself)

      So, you see, the 'any 3rd party' part really does come down to 'anyone who has received the binary', because it really means 'any 3rd party who has received the offer'. Of course, someone with a copy of the offer could just start handing out copies of it without the binary, but that would seem a little pointless to me...

    7. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, no.

      Until you have received some software from them, you have no agreement with them, and they don't have to give you anything.

      The GPL is talking about any third party who has received the software under the GPL. Any _other_ third party has not licensed anything under the GPL, and cannot claim any rights under it.

    8. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by swv3752 · · Score: 1
      I certainly do not read it as meaning that if you distribute the binary and source seperately, then anyone in the world can demand the source from you. Of course, IANAL, yadda yadda.


      But the net effect is that.
      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    9. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must be better at interpreting the GPL than the FSF's own lawyers!

      For those too lazy to follow the link: the interpretation of the FSF (you know, the people who wrote the license) is that "valid for any third party" means "anyone who has the offer can take you up on it."

    10. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by XO · · Score: 1

      Back in the day when including source code with your program would be difficult, as it would no longer fit on the distribution media, or it would be unreasonable to "force" someone into taking both the source code and binaries, as modem transmission speeds in the 300-1200 bps range were most common (and compression programs sucked arse then too), that was a very common thing.

      In the UNIX world, GPL programs were almost always transmitted via source code, without binaries. In all other OS worlds, GPL programs were (and still are) almost always transmitted via binary code, without source.

      There's lots of GPL windows software, but how many machines are owned by developers, and have the software needed to recompile source code?

      Think about it.

      The world is not ALL Unix.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    11. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by XO · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I --sell-- you the binary, under terms that you may not just copy it and give it away, then I have to provide YOU the source.

      That doesn't mean that I have to provide the source to someone if YOU gave them the binary, without license to do so.

      The GPL does not prohibit commercial software. It prohibits CLOSED software.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    12. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by jonadab · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, if you wanted to avoid the requirement to provide the
      source to anyone who asks for it, all you'd have to do is bundle it with all
      the copies of the binary you distribute. For example, if a hypothetical
      laptop developer made modifications to Linux to support some of their
      hardware so that they could distribute laptops with Linux preloaded, they
      could just throw the source for their custom kernels onto the hard drives
      (and, if applicable, the restore CDs) and would not then be required to
      maintain a public download of it, contribute it back to kernel.org, or any
      of that sort of thing. Anyone purchasing one of their laptops would be free
      to do so, but the company wouldn't have to trouble themselves.

      To me, that seems reasonable.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    13. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Suidae · · Score: 1

      but can you prohibit your customer from distributing the GPL'd source? Or compiling their own binary and distributing that (along with source of course).

      Could you modify GCC with non-standard extensions so that it would be very difficult or impossible to compile your GPL'd source? Since you don't link to or distribute your modifed compiler you dont' have to provide the source for it. Does the GPL specify that you have to provide compilable source?

    14. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by cavetroll · · Score: 1
      use Disclaimers::IANAL;
      Whether it is a valid loophole or not is unclear, certainly it is against the intent of the GPL, section 3 defines that:
      The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
      The argument would be that something like you describe would not be the preferred form for making modifications. Whether a court would see it that way is an entirely seperate issue.
    15. Re:I am the parent poster and I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever conditions you sell the binary for (if at all it is allowed for you to restrict what your customers can do with binaries built from GPL sources), your customer is never limited in its rights to distribute the GPL licensed (modified) source you provide them with.

  35. It's kinda funny by lxt518052 · · Score: 0

    But it's also a rotten old joke since it's used in the movie The Itaian Job http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317740/.

    --
    People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
  36. Hilarious... by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    They got hit with in-school suspension....

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  37. Ummm.. by GreyOrange · · Score: 1

    Your point is good and true one, but I'm not sure it is valid in the context of the story. They were not confusing Public Domain and Open Source. When they changed and removed the ascii string "ReactOS" is proof that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Sometimes coorporations are so large or disorginized that an upper management person is misinformed, but after they relieze their mistake, most(there are exceptions) will correct it by releasing source code or discontining product.

    --

    Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
  38. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should be a new rule. You can't bitch unless you have contributed .. either by donation or by code. Thank You.

  39. Sorry. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just thought the parallel was interesting. I really didn't mean to spread any predjudice. But, there is a bit of truth in saying that the contry is corrupt. Read this Bangladesh was recently named the most corrupt nation on earth.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bangladesh was recently named the most corrupt nation on earth.

      Oh, don't worry. The US is trying hard to catch up... : p

    2. Re:Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they don't at least have an Enron or Halliburton or Dick Cheney.

  40. Huzzah! by cliffyqs · · Score: 1

    sounds like in the reasonably near future we will have an OS that can run some MS Windows apps without being MS Windows. I think this is wonderful. I hope it survives the lawsuits MS will undoubtably try to kill it with (whether the suits have merit or not, they will probably try). May the Force and the Schwartz) be with you!

    --
    I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
    1. Re:Huzzah! by XO · · Score: 1

      I have two OS's currently running, that can run a LOT of MS Windows apps without being MS Windows.

      OS/2, and Linux.

      I bet if you try, you can find a few more, too.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  41. Re:Not a bad idea by LnxAddct · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing is slow about it! Ignore the moron :) You guys are doing an awesome job and it's much appreciated. Please keep up the great work. I think the grandparent underestimates the challenge at hand. The fact that you guys are making the progress that you have seems amazing.
    Regards,
    Steve

  42. One thing your interview didnt say by beuges · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will reactos binaries work under ms windows? I see in another post you say you've got an explorer clone, and some other clones of windows programs. I'd imagine your binaries would have to be .exe's and .dll's. Would I be able to replace my explorer.exe with your's? Of course chances are there'd probably be some programs that won't like the change very much, but have you tried running your apps under ms windows, and how well do they work?

    1. Re:One thing your interview didnt say by isolation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They do. In fact we develop quite a bit on Windows and then bring the applications over to ReactOS. explorer.exe taskmgr, regedit and quite a few of the drivers were developed on Windows as well as the Win32 libraries were ported from Wine back to Windows.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    2. Re:One thing your interview didnt say by dosius · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've used 0.23 versions of ROS Explorer and CMD.EXE on Windows 98SE and they work quite well.

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  43. Re:Not a bad idea by Alex_Ionescu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering that NT was built on 10 years of development (NT4), and that ReactOS has only really been in steady development since 3/4 years, and that we already support some Windows 2003/Longhorn features, I wouldn't call it slow.

    Best regards,
    Alex Ionescu
    Kernel Developer, ReactOS

  44. That's ok by PigeonGB · · Score: 1

    You should be able to access suicide girls now since no one has posted about them recently...Crap.

    --
    I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
  45. All gone by loftwyr · · Score: 1

    They're website has been suspended by the hosting company. I think maybe somebody at M$ noticed the posting here...

    1. Re:All gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are website has been suspended? Cool.

  46. We need lawyers on our side! by ZosX · · Score: 1

    Seriously guys, we need a law firm dedicated to fighting for OSS projects. I know that companies like IBM have pitched in and fought for our side, but what happens when the liabilities start sliding in the direction of OSS? For example, look at the massive amount of software patents that have been awarded lately. If you don't think that Microsoft and just about all the other commercial comapnies are trying to build up a warchest, a cache of PMDs (Patents of Mass Destruction[tm]), then you need to wake the hell up.

    The OSS crowd needs to start playing the game. Hell maybe some OSS projects should look at patenting their methods. You gotta fight if you want to be in the war. CherryOS and its ilk should have already had lawsuits sitting on their doorstep. Considering that in general OSS is mostly comprised of volunteer developers, there really is not any sort of cost involved in its development. How can you claim damages on something that is free to the public to use and distribute? What is copyright violation worth when the software has no value in dollars?

    I'm sure that some lawyers may read slashdot, and hopefully this post. To this I say to you. Join our side! OSS and the GPL are going to face some of the hardest trials in court yet. That little SCO dispute was small fries compared to the challenges ahead. Wait until an 800lb gorilla steps in.......

    1. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lawyers (like most professionals) like to be paid. Where is the money going to come from? This is the main problem with free software philosophy (not necessarily open source). Selling support and books is not going to cover it. Welcome to the real world folks.

    2. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by k98sven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't know what you're talking about.

      If a developer doesn't want to enforce OSS license terms himself, he can always assign the copyright to somone who will. Such as the FSF (for GPL project) or the Apache foundation (for Apache-licensed projects) and so on.

      The fact that the FSF hasn't actually been to court over a GPL violation isn't because they don't do anything, but rather because they're so successful at it that violators have chosen to settle instead.

      Besides, what business is it of yours to ask lawyers to defend the copyright of a third party?
      What if the developer/copyright owner himself doesn't care about the violation? It's nobodies business but his.

      How can you claim damages on something that is free to the public to use and distribute? What is copyright violation worth when the software has no value in dollars?

      This is also ridiculous. The software has value in dollars. If it didn't, there would be no point in ripping it off in the first place.

      Try this: "What is the cost of commercially developing something with equal functionality?"

    3. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I fully understand the GPL requires US copyright law. If the GPL is non-functioning, cpyright kicks in, and all 3'rd parties have 0 rights. And you only accept the GPL if you distribute.

      What would you do if PARTS of the contract requiring source being shown was found to be unlawful by the courts?

      --
    4. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is NOT a contract it is a license.

      It is covered by copyright law not contract law. If the license to use the copyrighted material is not valid then no license is active and hence any use is a copyright infringement.

    5. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by k98sven · · Score: 1

      I fully understand the GPL requires US copyright law.

      Then you don't fully understand since the GPL does not require US copyright law.
      It requires international copyright law and some basic contract law. This would cover the majority of the countries of the world and certainly most western states. The GPL has already been found valid by courts in several European countries.

      If the GPL is non-functioning, cpyright kicks in, and all 3'rd parties have 0 rights.

      You're saying that as if the there isn't an already existing copyright on a GPLed work. That's wrong.

      What would you do if PARTS of the contract requiring source being shown was found to be unlawful by the courts?

      I don't know, what would you do if your grandmother spontanously combusted inside an ice-cream truck?

      You are just throwing around hypothetical situations without any substance. Despite what you might think, courts aren't random in their judgements. They do operate on certain principles.

      Do you understand the concept of 'contractual freedom'? That basically means you can agree to anything in a contract which isn't prohibited by law.

      Please point out to me where in existing contract or copyright law an argument for how this would be illegal. And you better make it good, because the arguments in the other direction are pretty good.

    6. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by XO · · Score: 1

      No, he's not throwing around hypothetical situations.

      If a clause of the GPL were found to be unlawful in a locale, then whatever it affected would revert to the normal copyright law of the place where it were found to be unlawful.

      That's exactly how it works.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    7. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by k98sven · · Score: 1

      You conditioned your own sentence with "If".

      It's hypothetical because neither you or the grandparent poster have given any argument whatsoever for why the GPL would be found to be unlawful.

      Tell me: Do you usually go around assume things are illegal? Even things that you have every reason to believe are legal? And do you think up contingencies for these situations?

      Quit wasting your time.

    8. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by XO · · Score: 1

      It's hypothetical that it would happen. However, the GPL does in fact COVER that if it were to happen, then prevailing copyright law would take effect.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    9. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by k98sven · · Score: 1
      No, the GPL does not explicitly "COVER" this. Please point me to where it does so?

      This is a feature of any license or contract. If part of the license or contract is void, it defaults to what you are permitted under law to do. Since this is a copyright license, you are entitled to do what you would be entitled to under copyright law, which is your 'fair use' rights only.

      In the same way, if part of a sales contract were to be ruled void, the applicable portions of retail law would come into effect instead.

      The GPL does explicitly cover that a single section does not render the whole license invalid:

      If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.


      Although this portion is just a precaution, because this is how the law works anyway.
    10. Re:We need lawyers on our side! by k98sven · · Score: 1

      "If part of the license or contract is void, it defaults to what you are permitted under law to do."

      Just to be rigorous, I'll point out that this is an oversimplification. There are other things which come into consideration as well. A contract or license is not strictly 'valid' or 'invalid'.

      But if you want to know exactly how this works, go study contract law.

  47. Only natural by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I don't think think it's any kind of conspiracy. It's very simple. You give away code for free, and ask everybody politely not to steal it please, with no real money or leverage to back it up. Well, anyone who's older than 8 should not be so naive as to expect everybody to respect their wishes. That's just delusional. Of course open source code is going to be stolen and used in closed source apps, or poprietary apps. It's probably already been done thousands of times, and will continue to happen.

    It's along the lines of crossing at a "crosswalk" anywhere in suburbia America, and assuming that everybody will stop for you since it's the law. Law is one thing, but reality would intervene on that daydream, and you'd get flattened.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  48. hmmmmmmmm by orasio · · Score: 1

    Well, IP Rights do not deserve capitals, in my opinion.

    If you are talking about copyrights, well, it can be argued that they should be respected by big players, at least in the current state of affairs.

    If you refer to anything else that is not copyright by that "IP Rights" title, I disagree with you. Things like software patents and such should not be respected, because it is of no use.

    On the other hand, although we would all be better off without copyrights in the first place, while we are forced to respected them, it would be good that companies are too.

    The GPL, with it's copyleft, sort-of cancels out the copyright laws, making content free for the user. If we are forced to follow copyright rules, and companies aren't, there would be the risk of people taking chunks of copylefted code, and closing them again. We don't want that to happen.
    But failing to respect copyright is not bad in principle, it is bad just because it hurts our freedom.

    Further in your post you talk about "Pirating Closed Source Software" being bad.
    You fail twice there.

    Pirating is killing people, raping, and stealing, sinking ships, drowning people. Unauthorized copying of proprietary software is not pirating. Liberating would even be closer. Self-infringed punishment would be much closer, with respect to some software packages.

    The difference between the two cases is that when you copy a CD of proprietary software, a publisher allegedly loses some amount of fictional money that you were not willing to spend anyway.
    When someone re-releases GPLed code, it's lots of people who lose their freedom, not money.

    So, case 1 - some people lose some fictional money. Someone earns some aditional freedom.
    Case 2 - everybody loses freedom. Someone makes some money.

    Both are copyright infringement. Only, one is bad for people, and the other is not.

    In the end, thanks, I really enjoyed your troll-style capitalising of buzzwords.

  49. Diggingg dirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    A whois shows:

    Registrant
    Shamsuddoha Ranju
    Siemens Road #115, House #39/B
    Gulshan, Dhaka 1213
    BD

    Registrar..: IARegistry.com (http://www.iaregistry.com)
    AKSHOR.COM
    Created on..............: 02-Oct-2001
    Expires on..............: 02-Oct-2006

    Administrative Contact:
    Ranju, Shamsuddoha shamsu.ddoha@siemens.com
    Alpona Portal
    Siemens
    ZN Tower, Road # 8, Plot # 2
    Gulshan, Dhaka 1212 BD
    +880.18.218638 (FAX) +880.2.8819702
    Technical Contact:
    Ranju, Shamsuddoha unibangla@yahoo.com
    Alpona Portal
    Siemens
    ZN Tower, Road # 8, Plot # 2
    Gulshan, Dhaka 1212 BD
    +880.18.218638 (FAX) +880.2.8819702


    The interesting thing is that this guy is not a stranger to OSS either, he's got a savannah account.

    A picture of this con artist showing off the work of other's he's trying to take credit for: here

    The related article says:
    "Licensing is one of the problems the Ekush team is expecting to face. As the project is not based in the US, Ekush OS will not be able to obtain the license banner of General Public License (GPL), the US-based licensing company."

    Showing that either Mr. Ranju or the journalist (or likely both) have little clue on the GPL.
    1. Re:Diggingg dirt. by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      It could just be a bad translation; the GPL does seem to be dependent on US/Western-style copyright law for it to be effective. And while the GPL is not a company, that could just be bad translation or a journalist being thrown off by something said and then poorly translated.

      But probably they're just both clueless, you're right.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    2. Re:Diggingg dirt. by raphman · · Score: 1
      The user of Ekush OS will find a shell for a Bengali version programming language easier than that of Visual Basics, where he or she will use Bengali word commands instead of the regular English version commands.

      Ha, try to reuse this, damn OS zealots!

    3. Re:Diggingg dirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPL depends only on Berne convention copyright law. And Bangladesh is a signatory to Berne.

    4. Re:Diggingg dirt. by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Berne Convention == Western-style copyright law. I had no idea what copyright regime prevails in Bangladesh; can you blame me for believing it might not necessarily be a Berne signatory?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  50. Slashdotted... by ab384 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Site is either slashdotted or their hosting account has just expired.

    You'd think hosting companies would by now have a special "bandwidth limit exceeded by hordes of people from ./" page to put up to ./ requests, and just let "normal" traffic through...

    1. Re:Slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, might be just that!

      Divide

    2. Re:Slashdotted... by gtkuhn · · Score: 1

      Could this be just a bandwidth exceeded problem, or did akshor get pulled by their ISP over this.

  51. Intent by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact they went back to hide more 'evidence' clearly shows their intent.

    Anyone can mess up ( 'we plan on releasing source',' we didnt mean to change said copyright text', etc ).. But clearly this isnt a screwup.

    Looks like their site has been turned off by their hosting service.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  52. scary by jonathanduty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    May just be me, but its scary to hear the phrases "cloning Microsoft Windows" and GPL in the same context. Seems like we are just creating a door for legal problems.

    1. Re:scary by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Why?

      How is it different than Office (Open Office) or Internet Explorer (Mozilla)?

    2. Re:scary by jonathanduty · · Score: 1

      the charter of Open Office or Firebird is not to create a "clone" of MS Office or Explorer, but to create a different product that targets simular markets. Seems to me when the goal of your project is to clone another, thats when problems could start.

    3. Re:scary by mailtomomo · · Score: 0

      May just be me, but its scary to hear the phrases "cloning Unix" and GPL in the same context. Seems like we are just creating a door for legal problems.
      ;)

  53. They're not, though by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not about confusing OS with public domain, that would imply a mistake or misinterpretation. These folks are knowingly violating copyright. They're changing things to make it look like it's an unrelated product to hide that fact (especially if the "fdc.sys" statement is true)

    With apparently violations across the board for Ekush, I wonder what it would be like to have GPL-using companies and MS in the same courtroom, sueing the same defendant...

  54. can't be by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Ashcroft were here, he'd be going after these Linux copywrongdoers tooth and nail! Er, because he accomplished the goal of securing the US from crime and terror...

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  55. Front Page?!? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ReactOS may well be cool, but *UGH* they really need to find someone that knows how to write HTML.

    I wondered why as I hovered over links the font size changed, cusing the entire page to flicker all over the place - then I found why:

    From their page source:

    meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"

    Friends dont let Friends use MSFP

    1. Re:Front Page?!? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Even funnier - I just went to download an ISO, and its *in a ZIP file*.

    2. Re:Front Page?!? by ElvenMonkey · · Score: 1

      Even funnier - I just went to download an ISO, and its *in a ZIP file*.


      Thats nothing unusual, I've seen this numerous times for different projects. You can nicely reduce the overall size of the file if you zip up an ISO, which for an OSS non-profit site would be of great interest, reducing bandwidth quotas. Given ReactOS is aimed at being an alternative-to-microsoft Windows, it'd figure that their primary market would probably have Windows installed somewhere to download the file. After all.. its being burnt to a CD somehow anyway, and that implies a full OS install.
      --
      "Joy is not in things; it is in us." Richard Wagner
    3. Re:Front Page?!? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Ok I guess it isnt that ludicrous to compress it, or to use zip.

      I just had flashbacks to where I was going to get some MP3's from somewhere and *they* were individually zipped - which *IS* insane, becuase the resulting zip's were either larger than, the same size, or less than a dozen bytes shorter than the MP3 files were.

    4. Re:Front Page?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably beacuse his/her webhost had a no .mp3 policy.

    5. Re:Front Page?!? by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      I have seen a zip download that contained...wait for it...a 3 line batch file for MSDOS. Now if that's not a legit use of zip, I don't know what is!

    6. Re:Front Page?!? by twitter · · Score: 0
      ReactOS may well be cool, but *UGH* ... From their page source: meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" Friends dont let Friends use MSFP

      I can and do say the same for most M$ junk. At least FP puts out something other people can read. The cool thing would be them running it on top of their own free software. A useless demonstration of prowess, but a demonstration just the same.

      Just the other day, I tried out dosbox under Sarge. It worked very well and made a few very useful old programs available to me.

      I love these projects. When you compare the effort required to set up all the versions of DOS/Windoze required to run all the software and devices with the effort required to run the same things under dosbox, wine and others, the free software wins by a large margin. The goodness does end at having fewer entries in your grub file, but is multiplied by the ease and convenience of modern networking. It is very cool indeed to be able to run Dos, Win31 and Windoze via ssh -X and so share the applications. Go-Go React OS!

      as I hovered over links the font size changed, cusing the entire page to flicker all over the place

      Konqueror 3.3 / Debian Unstable renders it without the problems you describe.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    7. Re:Front Page?!? by clymere · · Score: 1

      as does firefox .93/slackware10

      --
      once you go slack, you never go back
    8. Re:Front Page?!? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Maybe its a font issue. Im running Mozilla 1.7 - I know MS HTML likes to specify specific, MS fonts.

      And yes, at least the site is in something that at least looks like HTML, as opposed to a flash-only site, or 'DOC' files. :P

    9. Re:Front Page?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought compressed ISOs were supposed to end in .mp3. I mean, both are compressed CD data tracks, right?

    10. Re:Front Page?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wanker

    11. Re:Front Page?!? by ElvenMonkey · · Score: 1

      I just had flashbacks to where I was going to get some MP3's from somewhere and *they* were individually zipped - which *IS* insane, becuase the resulting zip's were either larger than, the same size, or less than a dozen bytes shorter than the MP3 files were.

      I remember sitting in a computing class several years ago, bemusedly watching a fellow student zip up a zip file, of a zip file, of a zip file, trying desperately to shave 10k off the filesize so he could fit it onto a floppy disk. Eventually someone leaned over to him and pointed out that winzip has a disk spanning function.

      --
      "Joy is not in things; it is in us." Richard Wagner
  56. I don't think Shamsuddoha Ranju cares... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Well, Shamsuddoha Ranju, who owns the domain for the web site is not even in the US. So perhaps he really doesn't care one way or another about US copyrights? Software has got to be free, you know.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:I don't think Shamsuddoha Ranju cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is probably a shithead. In an interview with a local newspaper (http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/10/20/d410201601 109.htm) he said most of the contributors are from. If you find them, please sue them to their death, they deserve it so much.

    2. Re:I don't think Shamsuddoha Ranju cares... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      As long as he is not selling the software in the United States or Europe (where the copyright terms of the GPL will be enforced), nor generating any money of any kind, nor having any assets of any sort go through Europe or the USA, yeah, you are probably correct.

      It is just that I doubt he will collect too much money by trying to sell it in China or Ghana. And he had better make very sure to send back all money that comes his way from the USA.

      Since it appears that he is physically in the USA, that could be a little bit of a problem.

    3. Re:I don't think Shamsuddoha Ranju cares... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      Since it appears that he is physically in the USA, that could be a little bit of a problem.

      He is in Bangladesh. Not yet part of the American Empire.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    4. Re:I don't think Shamsuddoha Ranju cares... by Teancum · · Score: 1
      I know that he is from Bangladesh, but here is a quote that threw me for a loop:

      "The new system will be based on open source codes. Many of the developers on the 30-member development team, led by Shamsuddoha Ranju, senior executive engineer of Siemens Bangladesh Ltd, are based in the US and work at IBM, Microsoft and Linux." -- The Daily Star (URL quoted manytimes elsewhere)


      I don't know what to think of that, and the fact that many "developers" are based in the good ol' USA would certainly put a dampner on things... unless he is counting the ReactOS team as his group of developers. In which case, he also needs a head check to note that there are many other countries represented in the ReactOS group.

      Also, claiming affiliation with Siemens is not a good way to keep your job with a multi-national company. They would not like the fact that one of their engineers is dragging their name through mud right now, and regardless of any other affiliation he may have, he is likely not to have his job next week just off the bad press that this is generating alone. It largely depends on how much the corporate offices want to crack down on one of their employees in Bangladesh.
    5. Re:I don't think Shamsuddoha Ranju cares... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time believing that Siemens or IBM would touch or allow their employees to touch this with a ten-foot pole. I see what you are saying. I don't buy the statement.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  57. Hosting suspended? by Geccoman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just tried to hit the link for the Ekush site and got --

    This Hosting Account is Expired/Suspended

    If you are the site administrator click here to contact with Technobd.com

    --
    I'm on a chair.
  58. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    > Whats slow about ReactOS development?

    It tooks you 6 whole minutes to write a two line rebuttal !

  59. "enlightened self-interest" by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
    I don't understand why this is "self-interest". Apart from the risk of landing in jail, how is it in your interest to respect other people's IP? If you know you can get away with it it makes much more sense to rip off every bit of useful software you can. In fact, that's why we have laws about IP. Because without them people would act in their own interest and ignore other people's IP rights.

    Oh, and I know people are going to misread what I've just asked, so I'd better say that I'm not advocating ripping off people's code. I'm just asking why you call this "self-interest".

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:"enlightened self-interest" by achim · · Score: 1

      It's the "enlightened" that makes the difference. It stems from the insight that if the public benefits from a specific behavior, you benefit yourself from adopting this behavior in the long run.

      "Handle so, dass die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könne." Immanuel Kant, 1788. [English translation]

    2. Re:"enlightened self-interest" by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Enlightened self-interest, not simple self-interest. There's a very substantial difference. If everyone engaging this behaviour would help you, then by engaging in this behaviour yourself you're bringing about this desired result which is eventually to your own benefit.

      It's not just selflessly "doing your bit for the world", either. Consider: There are presumably a lot of people are in situations similar to your own and have a similar mindset. Correspondingly, if you rationally decide to do $FOO [which happens to have positive externalities], it's likely that others who think like you will also decide to do $FOO, thus resulting in intended net effect. See superrationality.

      Libertarians are often criticized for taking the position that greed is good. However, it's this more farsighted form of greed that we generally respect.

    3. Re:"enlightened self-interest" by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      No, I still don't think this is self-interest, even in the long run. I don't think that my adoption of respect for IP is going to have a significant impact on the way other people behave in the long run. In fact, I think it has zero impact. I eventually buy all of my music. (Well, I have some bootleg material that can't be bought so I should say I buy all of my music, when it can be bought.) I've told other people I do this. I don't see them doing the same. In fact, they probably think I'm an idiot for doing this. There's no self-interest here.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  60. Pit nicking by slashdot.org · · Score: 4, Informative

    they also derive code of (and are violating the rights of) Wine, FreeType and QEmu

    Just a pit-nick; AFAIK FreeType is distributed under a license which does not require redistribution of source.

    1. Re:Pit nicking by ubera · · Score: 1

      However...
      "distribution in binary form must provide a disclaimer that
      states that the software is based in part of the work of the
      FreeType Team, in the distribution documentation. We also
      encourage you to put an URL to the FreeType web page in your
      documentation, though this isn't mandatory.

      These conditions apply to any software derived from or based on
      the FreeType Project, not just the unmodified files. If you use
      our work, you must acknowledge us. However, no fee need be paid
      to us."

      Unless this company acknowledged them in detail, then that is another broken license.

      --
      But what is the SIGnificance?
    2. Re:Pit nicking by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but it does require this:

      You may not pretend that you wrote this software. If you use
      it, or only parts of it, in a program, you must acknowledge
      somewhere in your documentation that you have used the
      FreeType code. (`credits')

    3. Re:Pit nicking by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just a pit-nick; AFAIK FreeType is distributed under a license which does not require redistribution of source.

      I know this is slashdot, and all, but maybe you should read what you're linking to:

      This license grants a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual and
      irrevocable right and license to use, execute, perform, compile,
      display, copy, create derivative works of, distribute and
      sublicense the FreeType Project (in both source and object code
      forms) and derivative works thereof for any purpose; and to
      authorize others to exercise some or all of the rights granted
      herein, subject to the following conditions:
      • Redistribution of source code must retain this license file
        (`LICENSE.TXT') unaltered; any additions, deletions or changes
        to the original files must be clearly indicated in
        accompanying documentation. The copyright notices of the
        unaltered, original files must be preserved in all copies of
        source files.
      • Redistribution in binary form must provide a disclaimer that
        states that the software is based in part of the work of the
        FreeType Team, in the distribution documentation. We also
        encourage you to put an URL to the FreeType web page in your
        documentation, though this isn't mandatory.
      These conditions apply to any software derived from or based on
      the FreeType Project, not just the unmodified files. If you use
      our work, you must acknowledge us. However, no fee need be paid to us.

      By removing copyright notices and not complying with the documentation requirement stating that their "product" is based on Freetype, they most certainly are violating the rights of the Freetype team, whether or not they're distributing source.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:Pit nicking by XO · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the program's documentation?

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    5. Re:Pit nicking by julesh · · Score: 1

      No, but I don't suspect the person who suggested they weren't violating freetype's license has either. My point was that we don't know that they're not, not that they are.

  61. Major question for Slashdotters by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When the CherryOS thing happened, it was called "source code theft." The same response is happening with this.

    Why is it theft when it comes to GPL OSS programs, but it's suddenly NOT theft (instead, it's a "culture revolution") when it comes to taking music and movies from p2p networks? And why is it bad to violate GPL copyright but okay to violate the copyrights of music artists? I just don't understand the difference there and wonder how people reconcile those viewpoints in their minds. To me, it seems that Slashdot takes a stance against copyright in one breath, then in the next suddenly speaks out against violations of GPL copyright.

    1. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, my friend, are full of crap.

      I don't see EVERYONE calling this source code THEFT. If it were EVERYONE, then you might a legitimate complaint but as it is, you're just trolling.

      Nice try, come again, thanks!

    2. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's something I've wondered myself. Now, it's true that the two sets of people (those decrying GPL violations and similar, and those defending infringing copyrights on music and movies and similar) are not identical. However, for each article on each topic, there are a lot of highly-rated posts expressing each of those views, as appropriate. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that the consensus on slashdot is that infringing the GPL = bad, infringing movie/music/etc copyright = okay.

      Me, I view all IP rights infringement as bad, unless there are strongly mitigating circumstances (by which I mean, people's lives are on the line), but I do feel myself to be in a minority here at times.

      To all those of you reading this and thinking "but there are many views here!" that's true. But just look at the tones of the various articles, and the sorts of comments that get posted in response. Articles about the RIAA and MPAA suing filesharers for copyright violations always have a bias towards that being a bad thing, and yet we have articles taking companies to task for violating the GPL. Well, slashdot, you can't have it both ways, and no, predatory business practices and high prices don't excuse people infringing copyrights.

    3. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people don't like to pay for things.

      It just so happens, the SOB's at the RIAA make it easier by being bastards.

      I stopped buying cd's long ago. It was just something I couldn't afford.

      Though, I digress, in my old age I have begun paying for songs ala cart via iTunes. It's sometimes a little easier then finding an mp3 with no errors. (my car mp3 player is picky)

    4. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's hard not to come to the conclusion that the consensus on slashdot is that infringing the GPL = bad, infringing movie/music/etc copyright = okay.

      To be fair (and I do agree with you, by the way), the general view is usually closer to "infringing copyright for profit = bad, infringing copyright for personal use = good." So it's not soley a GPL vs Big Buisness thing.

      I'm sure that if some company out there ripped of Britnee Speares and started trying to sell her CDs as their own, most Slashdotters would agree that's a bad thing. (And not just because Britnee Speares music is awful.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    5. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by booch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think I can shed some light on the seemingly contradictory ideals that many folks hold regarding violation of GPL versus music "piracy".

      First, very few of the pro-music-"piracy" folks believe that it's OK to sell the music they "steal" for money. Their main arguments are that the prices music companies want to charge are artifically inflated; and until recently, the music companies did not even offer legal copies of the music in the formats that the listeners were using. Also, many music downloaders (myself included, when I was on Napster) consider the P2P sharing a way to discover new music by "borrowing" a copy. Personally, my Napster usage caused me to buy several more CDs than I would have otherwise.

      Second, the GPLed code is available for no cost already, so there's no money-saving incentive to break the GPL. Instead, those who purposely violate the GPL are causing something to be less free, while collecting money for it. Also, passing off someone else's work as your own is an additional moral infraction, beyond just re-distribution.

      You could almost characterize it as "stealing from the rich" versus "stealing from the poor". Even if you agree that "pirating" music is wrong, you're still likely to agree that stealing from the poor is a more reprehensible action. And people have always gotten bent out of shape by sellers trying to pull a fast one on consumers.

      Conversely, you could argue that music "piracy" is actually causing monetary harm to the IP owners, which is potentially damaging to their livelihoods. (I.e. it's worse to take money away from someone than to profit from something that was previously free.) But I think those who support music "piracy" believe that the monetary damages are minimal, if not outweighed by the benefits to the IP owners. Heck, even the music studios are aware of and take advantage of the benefits.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    6. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a suggestion: your post is actually quite insightful and you raise some points that are probably true, and you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.

      However, your grammar and spelling are so...bad (there's really no other word for it, sorry) that as insightful as your message is, very few people will take the time to read through it. It was pretty hard for me to get through it all.

      So, once again, just a suggestion - you might want to work on that spelling/grammar thing. Remember, the more you read/write, the better you get at it. Good luck.

    7. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by kz45 · · Score: 1

      Second, the GPLed code is available for no cost already, so there's no money-saving incentive to break the GPL. Instead, those who purposely violate the GPL are causing something to be less free, while collecting money for it. Also, passing off someone else's work as your own is an additional moral infraction, beyond just re-distribution

      less free? how so?

      Let's say I release source code under the GPL license. If a company decides to use it in their commerical application, the only code that isn't "free" is the code the company has created. The original code is still just as free. Therefore, I don't really see a problem.

      and so what if they make money off of it...a person releasing it under the GPL doesn't expect to make any money anyway.

    8. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      Republicans are for the Death Penality and Opposed to Abortions. These two confelct on the ideals of Value of any human life.

      As one who is in favor of the death penalty, and opposed to abortion, I have never looked at it in terms of the value of human life, but rather the value of innocence. Those who are guilty of a crime must take responsibility for their actions and accept their punishment. An unborn infant is innocent and has done nothing but simply exist.

    9. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by arodland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consider: the GPL is a tool designed to use copyright law to "defang" copyright. Yes, it introduces its own set of restrictions, but they are quite different from the "creator ownership" of modern copyright. There's a reason it gets called "copyleft".

      Perhaps it's just that people are against copyright when it's used to smother creativity, and more supportive of it when it's crammed back into its original role of fostering creativity. Or maybe slashdotters just like to rip off music. Doesn't matter that much to me. But I think that if you want to say that people are taking both sides of an issue, you should first look more closely at what the two sides are, and find out what they have in common that one person could believe in both of them. It's almost always instructive. :)

    10. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more like "copying some stuff for you own personal use is acceptable, taking credit for and selling other peoples work is bad".

      At least that's how I feel...

    11. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Funny

      We don't complain if you take ReactOS or PearPC and put it on a filesharing network. In fact we encourage you to do this.

      What we complain about is taking something, changing the name, a few text strings and some images, and claiming you wrote it yourself.

      This would be like taking one of Britney Spear's songs, changing the name and saying it was you who wrote it. I can't think why you would want to do that, but nevertheless, it could happen.

    12. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by mikefe · · Score: 1

      If there are changes made to the GPL source that are not released, then it is less free because those changes are not available.

      Also, you would need to use a LGPL licensed work if you want to use that code in the same address space as your closed-source code.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    13. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, slashdot, you can't have it both ways, and no, predatory business practices and high prices don't excuse people infringing copyrights.

      Is it not possible that there's one group of posters and moderators who support not infringing the GPL, and a _totally different group_ (possibly a younger one :) which supports infringing copyrights? It this perspective so out there that people have a hard time figuring it out for themselves?

      I mean, really, the parent post mentions that there are "many views here", but that information does not seem to be a part of the poster's thought process. Yes, "many views", or "two sets of people", does explain everything. Period. Yes, it is easier to think of SlashDot as some sort of unified intelligence than to think of a collection of people. But SlashDot is just a collection of people. Assigning opinions to SlashDot itself is sophistry. Who exactly is the "you" in "you can't have it both ways"?

      I say that as someone who opposes both GPL infringment and file sharing. I exist, thank you!

    14. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by *BBC*PipTigger · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, there need not be significant overlap between the groups of SlashDotters who say infringing GPL == bad && infringing (RI|MP)AA == okay... but let's assume that there is sufficient overlap that we can generalize && say there is one group regularly putting forth both of those seemingly contradictory memes... since I argue from the union of these sets myself on occassion. =)

      The unifying issue is free exchange of data (remember that code is data too). The GPL (copyleft) takes the laws && system that enforces monopolies on copy rights && subverts it. So freely exchanging code via GPL'd Free Software is done purposefully to remain free to use && modify... permanently. Violating this means closing it up && hiding the source && marketing it as a commercial product illegitimately... while violating music/movie copyrights means sharing them freely.

      There is no contradiction in thinking that data (&& code) are ideas by nature... chunks of thought && culture && society... which should be freely copied && shared && improved upon by all of humanity. HTH.

      -Pip

    15. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Money is irrelevent here. As is the Free/Less free. The only thing that is relevent is the wishes of the copyright holder(s). They decided to release their work not as BSD, MIT or public domain, but as GPL. Why? Obviously it was their wish that anyone who modified it would have to contribute those chages back if it was for anything other then their personal use. No one has any rights to that piece of code with out the approval of the copyright holder, therefore in order to continue to have the right to modify and distribute the code, they have to abide by the licencing restrictions placed on the code. That is what is wrong with this, by closing the source and not distrbuting changes, they have violated the agreements that gives them the freedom to make the changes and therefore no longer have any rights to the code at all.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    16. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we complain about is taking something, changing the name, a few text strings and some images, and claiming you wrote it yourself.

      That would be copyright violation. Just like the violations going on with P2P. The point still stands.

      Slashdot can't take a stand against copyright ownership in one instance and then support it in another. It's hypocritical.

    17. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

      Good question, and one that many of us often wonder.

      The general answer is that it is because music costs money, while GPL'ed software doesnt. This view makes no sense. Let me expand.

      If you take the view that copying GPL'ed software is bad but music is OK, you are generally disagreeing with the degree of freedom of said product. GPL is available for free (monetary free) while music is available upon the condition of payment - thus the advocate of copying music claims they reject the conditions under which they may obtain the music. What if I reject the conditions under which I can obtain GPL'ed software? What if I believe that all software should be licensed under the BSD license. Does that mean that I can take GPL'ed software and not release the source code because I personally reject the GPL as being too harsh in its restrictions?

      You cant have it both ways - either you abide by the license and conditions under which you obtain an item, or you, and everyone else (you cant have one rule for yourself and another rule for others) has the right to reject licensing conditions when they see fit. Agreeing to the GPL involves accepting that you must release your source code. Agreeing to obtain music involves agreeing to pay a specified amount to obtain that music. No difference.

      The author of a piece of work, whether it be software or music, has the right to determine what conditions they wish to release their work under. It is only fair that the end user follows those conditions.

    18. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      bonch (aka Overly Critical Guy aka rd_syringe)

    19. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      This is one of the (many) reasons that I support FreeBSD.

      The GPL asks for too much trust out of a group of organisms who, historically, have violated that trust time and time again.

      Leave your car intentionally unlocked and in a busy parking lot. Come back a week later. You might be lucky to see it again, probably if you live in a small town. As a result, you'll find little provisions all over your insurance contracts and state law against doing this. Of course, there are other reasons for these laws, but I don't want to digress on the reasons someone would do that.

      What I'm saying is that it's hard to get mad as if you didn't expect it was going to happen - it's going to happen, your hopes is that it doesn't, but you shouldn't have any delusion that it won't.

      The BSD camp, I guess, holds no such delusion. Another advantage of this method is that, while people may not always agree with how it's changed, there are too many cases of BSD code being adopted into commercial programs, improved, and sent back as a result. Darwin and the many changes in Mac OS X are easily shining examples of this - Microsoft's adoption of a good deal of BSD's IP stack and Kerberos (which is a MIT license, but we're talking nitpicks in difference here) help drive standards that might have otherwise been completely screwed (as we all know what MS has done to those two) without that help.

      Anyways, I know this argument is old-hat, I guess my point is that this is going to happen frequently, and the more GPL code out there, the more this is going to be a problem. So if you feel that GPL'd code needs to be protected, you need to defend it. How you choose to defend it might be a little different than the RIAA chooses too, but it should be no less of a concern.

      For all of RMS's faults, he's pretty good about taking care of this stuff. So if you like the GPL but have a problem with supporting the FSF, you have conflicting goals. Send them money.

    20. Re:Major question for Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This view, as odd as it is, does make sense. It isn't that people reject the requirement that they should have to pay for music, it's that people reject the idea that they should pay $15 for something that costs $0.04 to print, $0.10 to ship, and about $0.15 to stock onto shelves, when all the rest (minus about $0.75-$1 to the band) goes to stupid things that nobody wants to exsist to begin with.


      I for one want to support a band, but don't want to pay for some suit on the 15th floor of a highrise to keep his yacht and fleet of stretch Lexus limos when he had no role at all on the production of the CD.


      It's not that people want to steal music and don't want people to steal software, it's that people want the author of the art (music, software, whatever) to be the ones to get something from it, and not some stuffed up shirt who didn't do any work at all himself.

  62. GPL and Copyright and IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, not trying to flamebait:

    We are screaming about a GPL violation. We don't like copyright. We share IP material across P2P.

    We demand protection of our rights for code use, open or not. We don't mind trampling rights for music use.

    O.K., I'm feeling the disconnect.

    1. Re:GPL and Copyright and IP by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't like copyright as it's currently abused, and we believe that all useful material should be shared. Thus we have no problem with someone copying a program, or copying a music file. That's what the GPL is all about, really, the right to copy. What we do have a problem with is falsely claiming ownership. If this company was selling Britney songs for lots of money claiming to have written them, we'd have the same objections as we do now. If the company was putting gpl programs on an ftp site and distributing them over p2p, we'd have no problem with it.

      --
      I am trolling
  63. About every possible song is already copyrighted by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Except that a lot of people argue that file-sharers aren't claiming that the music they are sharing is their own work, and therefore it is not copyright violation either.

    In some cases, it may be more likely that you infringe when you share your own musical work. Some claim that the incumbent music publishers have snapped up the copyrights in almost every possible melody in the Western musical system, making any independent work an infringing derivative work.

    In addition, the definition of "theft" in some states includes the copying of a sound recording without permission and with intent to distribute.

  64. The difference between software and music/movies by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's that I keep hearing around here when music and movie copyrights are violated, "it's not stolen

    The difference is that courts tend to interpret the exclusive right to prepare derivative works much more broadly for "creative" works, such as musical works, sound recordings, dramatic literary works, and audiovisual works[1], than for "functional" works such as computer programs. Analogy is as if Microsoft could copyright the Windows API, making Wine an infringement, or if Xerox and Apple could copyright the Mac OS GUI, making Windows and X11 environments an infringement. It's easier to avoid infringing a copyright on software (especially compared to music), so Slashdot users tend to regard such a violation as more egregious.

    [1] If you aren't familiar with copyright law terminology, the respective digital embodiments of these classes of works are MIDI files, Ogg Vorbis files, movie scripts in a markup language, and AVI files.

  65. I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a Bangladeshi and I am so ashamed of what this guy has done. He is a theif and what's more, he is a Microsoft FUD agent. Copying commercial software is one thing, but totally stealing an Open Source project is just so unthinkable.

    1. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man have you got your morals backwards.

      Ripping off Closed Source is wrong.

      Repackaging Open Source is not only allowed, it is encouraged by the GPL.

      Your being upset by this really just points out how unintuitive and backwards the Open SOurce logic really is...

    2. Re:I am ashamed by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Well, you got it half-right anyhow. The problem isn't the guy modifying and distributing ReactOS - the problem is that he removed all attribution so that he could try to claim the work as his own, and attempted to distribute the software under a license other than the GPL.

      Even in the Free Software world, that is violating copyright law, and stealing.

  66. What we? by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Who are you talking about? I like copyright just fine.
    I think the time is a bit long, but that is a second point.

    I don't illegally share IP material. I demand protection of my rights for code use and any other IP I generate. I think musicians deserve the same protection for their work.

  67. Re:Ah...they should have called it CheeriOS. by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, the OS that stays crunchy in milk!

    Filled with vitamin fortified DLL's!

    And a free application in every box!

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  68. Re:Welcome to the wonderfulll world of open-source by kurokaze · · Score: 1

    "Where stealing technologies from big commercial company is good(tm), and company that protect their assets are bad(tm). Company stealing from open source is Bad(tm) and open source that protect their asset(!!!???) is good(tm)."

    man how I wish I had mod points right now..

  69. Correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never attribute to conspiracy that which is more easily explained by stupiditiy.

    Corollary: There are at times conspiracies that from your point of view seem ridiculous, preposterous and tin-foil-hat-ish, which are in fact quite sinister, multinational, longitudinal plots.

  70. you're missing the point by dougnaka · · Score: 1
    There are 3 things going on here in your post.. First, open source works are generally copyright their respective creators, and released to you in source form under a restrictive license like the GNU Public License, which allows you to reuse it as long as you keep the same license and give your changes back to the community.

    Second, you're talking about key generators, cracked security keys, etc, largely used for piracy. Most open source advocated are NOT pirates of music or software. And, many would argue that software piracy greatly hurts the value of open source software since people don't realize the true cost of the software they pirate. This is not a motivation for typical open source advocates to crack things.

    Third, you're talking about fairly using something that someone has attempted to unfairly restrict your use of. This is where iTunes and deCSS fall under. If I go to Best Buy and purchase a copy of the Terminator and want to watch it on my computer, should I not be able to, just becuase it's encrypted? Of course not. I should be able to watch it on my pc, rip it to DivX to keep a smaller copy on my computer for play on my xbox/playstation2. This is a moral breaking of an unjust law, and it's legality is irrelevant. Same goes for iTunes, they sell you crippled files you own the crippled files, it's within your right to uncripple them. It _used_ to be within your rights of fair use to make copies of music and mix tapes and give them friends free of charge, however the current RIAA/MPAA friendly administration is helping to erode those rights, thanks Orrin!!!

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
  71. Re:Welcome to the wonderfulll world of open-source by m50d · · Score: 1
    It's not right to distribute software without source. It's especially wrong if such software is usually distributed with source under an open source license. We support the millions of distros because they include source; if this company was distributing source with their offering, we'd have no problem with it.

    The GPL is "serious copyright of any kind", and we are protecting it, at least as well as the security keys do.

    --
    I am trolling
  72. Re:Hosting suspended? - Funny name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technobd.com =TechnoBAD.com

  73. Slashdotted already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Hosting Account is Expired/Suspended

    If you are the site administrator click here to contact with Technobd.com

  74. Re:Welcome to the wonderfulll world of open-source by RyanAXP · · Score: 3, Informative

    Are you trolling? I ask because you've conflated several issues which are utterly unrelated, and you besmirch "open source" as some sort of WareZ or SerialZ scheme. If you're not trolling, then it's clear you are ignorant of these subjects.

    First of all, your first assertion--that "the wonderfulll world of open-source" somehow advocates stealing intellectual property is patently ludicrous. If you care to browse the mailing-list archives for nearly any open-source project, and ReactOS's in particular, you will find a very clear regard for copyright, such that any incoming code contributions are challenged to ensure no non-opensource code is accepted.

    Second, you assert that opensource works have "no serious copyright of any kind." Forgive me for asking, but what the hell does that mean? Are you saying that copyright is somehow less valid when licensed under the GPL, when compared to run-of-the-mill garbage click-through or shrink-wrap "licenses"? If so, would you kindly back up this baloney with a factual example? In my experience, the GPL has received favorable enforcement when asserted against infringers in the past; is the same true for click-throughs?

    Further, you seem to suffer under the delusion that authors of opensource software are the same individuals who "consider it legit to publish security keys, hacks to encryption algorythms" and so forth. This is utter garbage, again. I defy you to name a single ReactOS or Linux developer (credited by name in the source code) who is a WareZ kiddie.

    Finally, the "repackaging" that the ReactOS team finds objectionable is only that this "Ekush" entity is merely removing attributions to the true authors, and redistributing ReactOS-derived software without adhering to the licensing terms under which ReactOS was distributed. I'm sure they could care less if Ekush properly forked the ReactOS code and released their own version while adhering to the ReactOS license, and might even support serious parallel efforts if done for a principled reason--the ability to code-fork is one well-known and universally-acknowldged BENEFITS of opensource. But what happened here is mere blatant piracy, with no attention heeded to the original license.

    CLIFF NOTES: get your damn facts straight, stop attributing attitudes or positions to people which they never held, and learn the difference between opensource and warez, you tool.

  75. Read this.. by sabit666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    at the very end where they define GPL

    http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/10/20/d41020160 11 09.htm

    I am truly ashamed and apologize on behalf of my countrymen.

  76. Announcing FishIx, a Linux-Compatible OS by FFFish · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's right. I've decided that tomorrow I'm going to release a new operating system. It will be a POSIX-compliant OS that will have complete Linux compatibility. It's also going to have a great desktop GUI that is 100% compatible with KDE.

    The package will be named FishIx and FDE.

    Now, away to the FishCave! I've grepping to do if I'm going to get this done in time! Kernel.Org is the place to grab source, right?

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    1. Re:Announcing FishIx, a Linux-Compatible OS by FFFish · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, damn, I've already run into a snag.

      Anyone able to give me quick instructions on how to run a kernel compile? I've never done this before...

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Announcing FishIx, a Linux-Compatible OS by eggsome · · Score: 1

      Careful, rings of the fish are Auto-Cursing in ADOM.

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
  77. Why create a whole new OS... by ThinkTiM · · Score: 1

    when you could just implement the windoze APIs on top of the OS of your....hey, what about WINE???!!!!

  78. Happy Happy - Joy Joy.... by templest · · Score: 0
    A CherryOS for the Windows world?


    Last time I check, CherryOS is for Windows. It just doesn't run it. ;P
    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
  79. Severely Handicapped Mods? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe you are just a more funny individual than I am.

    I think I lean slightly towards the former as an explaination.

    Anyway, congrats on gleaning a +3 Funny off of my -1 joke.

    1. Re:Severely Handicapped Mods? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I think it was the exclaimation marks more than anything. That and a great parent post to work from.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  80. Stop being a PC wussy- Bangladesh is corrupt!! by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    You're not proposing a racial theory here. Its relatively small country where power and wealth concentrated in a very small percentage of people. Surprise! A quick search on the net and you've found evidence, and there's plenty more. BTW- The UN has done a global survey measuring corruption in business in different countries. The US was "somewhat corrupt," with the Scandanvian countries being among the least corrupt.

  81. EKush by JerryLs · · Score: 1

    Looks like their account has been suspended. Guess they'll have to stay home and play H2... -JerryLs

    --
    Ad Astra Per Asper
  82. Easy to explain. by twitter · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Why is it theft when it comes to GPL OSS programs, but it's suddenly NOT theft (instead, it's a "culture revolution") when it comes to taking music and movies from p2p networks?

    What you see here is a cry for equal enforcement of copyright law. If I can be stripped of my life savings and companies can be fined hundreds of millions of dollars and put out of business for copyright violations, then the people behind ekush should be forced to do as the current owners of the software demand. It just so happens that people who "own" GPL'd software are not as asinine when it comes to their demands, so the remedies are simple: release the code or pay the authors. You will find me recommending p2p music "theft".

    Read Lessing's Free Culture for an understanding of how the radio, recording and movie industries all "pirate" content. The only way anyone could think the current copyright mess is legitimate is if they believe in a command economy as many of the "IP" rights are stripped from performers and composers in favor of price controls.

    The GPL is a mechanism to undermine software copyrights and the closed source model. The makers of the GPL think those things are abusive, but were clever enough to make an instrument that relies on the power of copyright law. Use of free software directly ends the user's abuse by closed source companies but indirectly fixes copyright laws. When the revenue for abusive companies like Microsoft dries up, they will be less able to purchase laws for themselves and copyright laws can return to something less intrusive and dangerous.

    Lessing's creative commons will do much the same thing for entertainment and all of this AM radio empire bullshit will be long forgoten as programmers, composers and performers all make livings without as many nasty middle men.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  83. Deriving is no problem. Distributing is. by theendlessnow · · Score: 1
    Ekush is not only violating the rights of ReactOS by deriving a product without releasing the modified source, they also derive code of (and are violating the rights of) Wine, FreeType and QEmu."

    Deriving is not a problem. Distributing is (talking about the GPL in particular). You can use/destroy/mangle/mutilate to your hearts content, even withing the confines of a company... but if distributed publically, fee or not, you have to provide access to the source (for fee or not).

  84. Re:The difference between software and music/movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't stop certain unscrupulous, and very rich, people from suing the fark out of a very poor person who's website bears a resemblance in functionality, and potential layout, causing that person immense legal issues, and being even more poor, and then having to capitulate to the whims of the very rich person in regards to the software that they wrote completely independantly, because real Copyright lawyers only come when you have 5-6 digit bankrolls.

  85. You have to have the offer and the binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As far as the FSF is concerned, the person requesting the source code must have received a copy of the binaries and the accompanying written offer.

    So, merely knowing that a company is distributing a GPL covered program is not enough for you to request the source code. You must first obtain a copy of said program (and the offer of source code) from either the original vendor, or one of their customers (via redistribution under the terms of section 1 of the GPL).

  86. Why do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't check out Ekush (Site down?), but I looked over ReactOS screenshots. Not to sound like the glass is half empty, but this looks like little more than a child's rendition of Windows NT.

    Anyways, why would someone want to clone Windows in the first place?

  87. Excellent nit. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    But to pick yet another (they tend to multiply like lice in Moria) in fact all that is required is that you have the offer. In truth, you only need be aware of the offer, since it is in fact required to be an offer valid for any third party, not any third party who has the binary.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  88. That and a few other points... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    Including-but-not-limited-to:
    • Microsoft essentially stole the MICA variant of VMS 5 to make NT (they eventually paid some trivial amount of compensation to digital(*) just before it got Compaqted) which gave them a considerable head-start (and VMS was actually secure before it became NT, behold the passion-fingered power of Microsoft). For a fair while, NT and VMS were driver-compatible and several areas "spelling-error compatible".
    • Microsoft probably had 20-50x as many FTE developers working on their codebase as you do on yours, and using dedicated top-of-the-wozza equipment and facilities for that.
    • Microsoft have a patent portfolio and lawyers to help them work around or bargain past patent-the-wheel problems, but you don't.
    • On the flip side, Microsoft also had Bill Gates buggering up their policy decisions for them.
    No, I think ReactOS is doing all right, overall.


    (*) Microsoft did a similar thing to boost MS SQL Server up to a competitive level. Don't know what they're going to do to help that unit survive in a world where at least five competent FOSS SQL databases exist, several of which eat their lunch on performance and prerequisites, to say nothing of licence entanglements.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  89. I thought copyright violation wasn't "theft" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just said they "stole" code. Everyone else is saying the same thing.

    I thought copyright violation wasn't theft?

  90. Re:Not a bad idea by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    What's slow about it? Well, for one thing you're taking WAY too long to put all the bugs in. Also, I can't run my Bonzi Buddy and stuff yet! I mean, without those features there's NO WAY you could compare it to Windows!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  91. Re:Deriving is no problem. Distributing is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're passing ReactOS off as their own by changing the copyright notices, and if they're doing so for Wine, FreeType, and QEmu as well, then they're violating the rights of those projects as well.

  92. Right on by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    GPL violations make information *less* free; sharing copyrighted music and video makes information *more* free. The unifying principle is that information should be more free.

    In addition, GPL violations such as this one have an element of plagiarism. Personally, I believe proper credit is the only moral right an author/artist has regarding his creations, and I doubt I'm the only one here who feels that way.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  93. That guy at Ekush is a bad bad man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no question in my mind that Ekush is doing something they shouldn't be doing. Most of us agree that it is wrong, but now we must articulate why it's wrong using law terms, both from copyright sources, and GPL.

    Whether or not Ekush should sell their code is a no brainer. But for shiz and giggles I say let them sell it! M$ will undoubtly decompile their code, and see all the theft they have done, and take matters into their own hands (I happen to know that Bill Gates doesn't take too kindly to software piracy, whether it be his first born Windows, or his love child on the side, Halo 2).

    I think the people at ReactOS, should ...react harshly to the taking of their code, without any type of notoriety. C'mon Ekush, you gotta know how wrong this is; and the fact you still haven't owned up to it just makes me wonder about the stability of your brain, not your OS.

    BUT HEY...look at it this way. How did Steve Jobs make his empire? By stealing the icon and mouse idea from Xerox. How did Bill Gates form his empire, but stealing Steve Jobs' idea. So it's only fair that the same thing would happen to him. Easy come, easy go. Ekush: the next generation of theives.

    akhenax

  94. YAAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Are A Dumbass. The point *doesn't* stand, because, as others have repeatedly pointed out, there is no single "Slashdot Stand(tm)". Slashdot consists of a group of people, all of whom have their *own* ideas of what's what. Everyone has their own opinions, and sometimes they overlap.

    To call that "hypocrisy" is the height of stupidity and short-sightedness.

    Ergo, you are a dumbass. Q.E.D.

  95. Re: Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World? by anasciiman · · Score: 1

    Well, let's be fair here. If Ekush wants to be exactly like Windows, do they not need to steal other's source code just like Microsoft did? I mean, just to be compatible or whatever...

    --
    Think of me when you shave your legs...