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
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 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
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
Well, slashdot, you can't have it both ways, and no, predatory business practices and high prices don't excuse people infringing copyrights.
:) which supports infringing copyrights? It this perspective so out there that people have a hard time figuring it out for themselves?
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
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!