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."
...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
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?
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.
"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.
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...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.
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.
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!!!!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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.
Unless you happen to be a 12year old girl with RIAA type choice in music...
liqbase
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
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.
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.