Page 1 of 3

A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:05 am
by Ancient
Hi,
Of late there has been some drama in the Linux community, about a new code of conduct. There seems to be some animus between various parties. It occurs to me that many contributors to Linux own copyrights to their work, and may be able to pull their work from public use. It is possible nothing will come of this, but also possible key features of Linux code are protected by copyright and may be subject to recall by the copyright owner.

This caused me to think about React OS. Is the copyright ownership here similar to Linux (I know there are a number of flavors of GNU, and some of the code is protected under different flavors). If someone here doesn't mind an inquiry would a coder here be able to remove their work from React OS at will if there was a disagreement over a RoS policy?

The situation with Linux development seems unfortunate, but instead of calming down after Linus Torvalds stepped down and apologized, it seems to be escalating into something resembling tribal warfare. Linux can't afford that, no operating system can.

Thanks for any insight.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:29 am
by PurpleGurl
That is a shortcoming of the open source model. Yes, the coders maintain their individual copyrights, but I wasn't aware that they could pull what they've already licensed as open source.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:05 am
by EmuandCo
They can not, the code was licensed as GPLv2 etc and you can keep the one licensed that way. The owner can relicense it, but only never revisions of the code. Thats what I know about it, but I am happy about anyone telling me some other facts, confirming my thinking as wrong.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:59 am
by justincase
I don't see any mention anywhere of anyone wanting to remove their existing work from the Linux kernel, and to my knowledge, once you've given someone a license to use your code (in this case the GPLv2 license), and especially an open source license (which GPLv2 qualifies as) which allows those who receive your code to redistribute it, you can't take it back, anyone who has it has your permission not only to keep it, but to distribute it to others and allow them to distribute it too.
The same holds true for ReactOS, which I believe is also GPLv2.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:06 pm
by EmuandCo
GPLv2, LGPL (mainly Wine stuff), GPLv3 (mainly NTVDM) and 2-clause BSD we have. And some PD of course too ^^
And yes, thats what I meant. If you wanna change your license, sure, but the code released before the change still is under the older license. There are enough forks out there happeneing due to license changes.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:57 pm
by oldman
Does the above mean, that all the posix sub-system code that that Italian developer had submitted before he got all upset and changed the license, is still in the source tree?

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:04 pm
by jimtabor
oldman wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:57 pm
Does the above mean, that all the posix sub-system code that that Italian developer had submitted before he got all upset and changed the license, is still in the source tree?
Hyperion code? Yes.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:48 pm
by EmuandCo
And even if not... SVN/GIT never forgets ^^

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:27 pm
by Ancient
Thanks for the reply and information. I don't want to provide links to external websites, but will if it is permitted (no wish to advertise for any other site).

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:47 am
by Quim
What about Open Source Software made by Microsoft included in ReactOS since version 0.4.8?

https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows-dr ... lesys/cdfs

Also the CDFS driver has been replaced with the MSPL’ed original one after a full review. This review, as a curiosity, has revealed at least one bug, which has been sent upstream to Microsoft GitHub with its proper fix.
http://reactos.org/project-news/reactos-048-released


Is convenient to ROS to have no Microsoft code in it.
How dificult is to write a new CDFS driver?
ReactOS had an old one until version 0.4.7 .

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:46 am
by EmuandCo
Well, I took the licenses often used. MSPL is not one of em. What about what? Our old CDFS driver was a hacky mess and this one works as it should and is open source. Noone cares about it's origin as long as it can be legally used which is the case here. And we do not start a MS is too evil to trust or similar discussion in here now! If you have a urge to do that, open a new thread. Thanks

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:03 pm
by Ancient
Any code developers can use that saves time and is open source is good code. My understanding with the Linux discussion is GPL 2, which may allow revocation of license under GPL 2 by the copyright owner. GPL 3 solves this, but a lot of the Linux was done and is still under GPL 2. If copyright owners rescind their GPL 2 license, it could become messy. Litigation over nonsense has been a problem since the first software patent by syncsort and the first look and feel litigation. My hope is Linux doesn't implode over nonsensical codes of conduct. The new proton stuff Valve creates is really decent, supporting a lot of DX 11 and more DX 12 than expected. To the extent it is integrated over time with WINE, it's going to help everyone. Reading about it, Valve paid Codeweavers to develop a lot of the Proton extensions which are now open source. It appears a game company didn't like reliance on Microsoft. So as Linux and WINE are really starting to improve and move us 2 steps forward, we have social justice to help take us back 3 steps. :(

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:36 pm
by justincase
Ancient wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:03 pm
My understanding with the Linux discussion is GPL 2, which may allow revocation of license under GPL 2 by the copyright owner. GPL 3 solves this, but a lot of the Linux was done and is still under GPL 2. If copyright owners rescind their GPL 2 license, it could become messy.
Where are you getting the idea that a copyright owner can revoke the GPLv2 license they've already granted to, literally, anyone who can get their hands on it?

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:08 pm
by karlexceed
Ancient wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:03 pm
My understanding with the Linux discussion is GPL 2, which may allow revocation of license under GPL 2 by the copyright owner.
From the GNU's mouth (emphasis is mine):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... ThirdParty
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

Re: A question about ReactOS code and copyright ???

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:57 am
by Ancient
This is from the Linux Kernel Mailing List - http://archive.is/vJCtJ
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:28:14 +0000
From unconditionedwitness@redchan ...
Subject Re: A Plea to Unfuck our Codes of Conduct
Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after
this CoC:

Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
from (regarding their property (code)) .

The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has
such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense,
the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past
contributions).

When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the
plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.

Banned contributors _should_ do this (note: plaintiff is to register
their copyright prior to filing suit, the copyright does not have to be
registered at the time of the violation however)

Additionally when said banned contributors joined the Linux team, they
were under the impression that it was a meritocracy: in-fact this belief
was stated or ratified by those within the governing body regarding
Linux when the contributors began their work (whatever that body was at
that time, it could have been simply Linus, or Linus and a few
associates).

The remuneration for the work was implied to be, or perhaps stated, to
be fame as-well as a potential increase in the contributors stature, in
addition to membership in the Linux Kernel club or association, or
whatever it is that the Linux Kernel Community actually is (which a
court may determine... it is something, suffice to say).

Thusly for work, consideration was promised by (Linus? Others? There are
years of mailing list archives with which to determine).

And now that consideration has been clawed-back and the contributors
image has been tarnished.

Thus the worker did work, however the other side of the implied, or
perhaps written (email memorandums), understanding has been violated
(once the contributor has been banned under the new non-meritocratic
"CoC").

Damages could be recovered under: breach of contract, quazi-contract,
libel, false-light. (services rendered for the contractual claims,
future lost income for the libel claims)

In addition to copyright claims. (statutory damages, profits)

For greatest effect, all rescission should be done at once in a bloc.
(With other banned contributors).

Contributors: You were promised something, you laboured for that
promise, and now the promise has become a lie. You have remedies
available to you now, as-well as in the close future .

Additionally, regarding those who promoted the Code of Conduct to be
used against the linux kernel contributors, knowing full well the effect
it would have and desiring those effects; recovery for the ejected
contributors via a tortious interference claim may be possible.