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."

Comments

OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS

[isolation]

I have already covered it here.

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

Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept

[isolation]

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.

Bangladesh

[thing12]

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.

IT WAS ASHCROFT, HE'S IN WITH THE ALIENS

[mcc]

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.

Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[SmallFurryCreature]

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

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[lukewarmfusion]

"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.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[B3ryllium]

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

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[Jonathan the Nerd]

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.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[grahamlee]

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.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[jonadab]

> 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.

Re:Not a bad idea

[isolation]

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?

Re:I hope they speak C better than English

[RLiegh]

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

Sorry.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

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.

Diggingg dirt.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:One thing your interview didnt say

[dosius]

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

Moll.

Intent

[nurb432]

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.

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[runderwo]

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.

Re:Is this another attempt...

[apanap]

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.

Hosting suspended?

[Geccoman]

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

Re:Get the nooses ready boys...

[geg81]

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.

Pit nicking

[slashdot.org]

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.

Re:Pit nicking

[julesh]

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')

Re:Pit nicking

[Zak3056]

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.

Re:Welcome to the wonderfulll world of open-source

[RyanAXP]

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.

Read this..

[sabit666]

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.

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[XO]

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.