I have one problem with ReactOS

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

LOst
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:33 pm

I have one problem with ReactOS

Post by LOst »

I can't seem to understand what's legal and what's illegal. Some stuff is very close to Microsoft Windows NT, and some stuff is even closer!

If I want to write something for this great OS, how do I know when I'm breaking the law?
If I want to implent GDI+, the first way to do so is to disassemble the libraries and steal stuff directly from the source. But if that's illegal, I have to like do my own stuff and make it look like Microsoft's?

All the API's that are straight from Windows' SDK are still copyrighted. I have no idea what's right and what's wrong.

Are ReactOS legal?
I see a GPL based clone of Windows NT without Microsoft's permission, and it's opened up for some major trouble.

Pentiumforever
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by Pentiumforever »

its illgal to steal anything from the leck code and its illegal to to disassemble it!

Asraniel
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:06 pm

Post by Asraniel »

its illegal to dissasemble. But its perfecly legal to implement functions from a API in a way that it works like the real one. Just never dissasemble and steal code. ReactOS never stole code, so, no problem

LOst
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:33 pm

Post by LOst »

Asraniel wrote:its illegal to dissasemble. But its perfecly legal to implement functions from a API in a way that it works like the real one. Just never dissasemble and steal code. ReactOS never stole code, so, no problem
That answers my question.

Paul Baker
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:25 pm

Post by Paul Baker »

But its perfecly legal to implement functions from a API in a way that it works like the real one.
As long as the API's functions aren't patented. Does anyone know if any features cloned by ROS are patented?

Pentiumforever
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by Pentiumforever »

when you have a webshop you use a laot of functions they pantented but many patents are not rigth (sorry but i dont know the coorect word) they are fals the company cant use it in a court!

Delfi
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:45 pm

Re: I have one problem with ReactOS

Post by Delfi »

LOst wrote:All the API's that are straight from Windows' SDK are still copyrighted. I have no idea what's right and what's wrong.

Are ReactOS legal?
I see a GPL based clone of Windows NT without Microsoft's permission, and it's opened up for some major trouble.


patented api? show me the documents and patent numbers + claims, you can't patent api FFS, you can only patent "methods of doing something" and algorythms in software..

and why would reactos need microsoft's permission for anything?

reactos is to my knowledge developed in EU, so some vierd eu laws apply:
- EU Software Directive allows EU companies to reverse engineer their competitors' products in order to produce compatible, competing products. But such laws in most cases just give you the right to try, not to succeed. Back when compatibility meant messing around with file formats, there was a real contest - when Word and Word Perfect were fighting for dominance, each tried to read the other's files and make it hard for the other to read its own.

- European copyright law states that copyright is automatically granted to the writer(s) of an original piece of work. No registration of this work is required by local or international governments or organisations for the copyright to be legal. Due to international treaties these copyrights are also valid in the U.S.A, Canada and other countries outside the European Union.


if reactos would be a company we would be even allowed to reverse-engineer their stuff..

aniway, software patents are invalid in the EU, at least i think we're safe
for another 2 years :)

Pentiumforever
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by Pentiumforever »

But when you right and ist only eveloped in the EU so can every Amrican download it in the USA and that is the proplem!

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan »

pentiumforever wrote:But when you right and ist only eveloped in the EU so can every Amrican download it in the USA and that is the proplem!
Which would only be a problem if ROS were somehow illegal in the USA, which it isn't.

Not yet, at least ;)

Pentiumforever
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by Pentiumforever »

the last sentec have save you for a long reply with very bad english :lol:

uniQ
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:58 am

Post by uniQ »

Well get it, even if it IS illegal (here).

-uniQ
Coming on, coming up, let me help ROS and I'll be able to look @ a life well used.

Viator
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:53 am

Post by Viator »

I dont know anthing about programming etc but can you disassemble/decompile? (even if it was illegal) (how would they know heheh) their product look at the code see how they implemented somthing then write your own code that basically does the same thing from scratch?

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan »

viator wrote:I dont know anthing about programming etc but can you disassemble/decompile? (even if it was illegal) (how would they know heheh) their product look at the code see how they implemented somthing then write your own code that basically does the same thing from scratch?
You can decompile or use other methods (including obtaining a copy of the source code through 'sources') and from that create a similar or identical implementation.

The only legal method, however, is to only look at the API and reproduce the functionality of each call by treating each function as a black box; i.e. for any data you put in the box, you have to make it spit out the same response.

This is also known as a clean room implementation: recreating the functionality of a piece of software without any knowledge of the internal workings. Other examples of this process include Samba (SMB, the file-sharing protocol used by Windows), Wine (Win32 API) and Office-format filters (.doc, Excel, etc.).

LOst
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:33 pm

Post by LOst »

Elledan wrote:
viator wrote:I dont know anthing about programming etc but can you disassemble/decompile? (even if it was illegal) (how would they know heheh) their product look at the code see how they implemented somthing then write your own code that basically does the same thing from scratch?
You can decompile or use other methods (including obtaining a copy of the source code through 'sources') and from that create a similar or identical implementation.

The only legal method, however, is to only look at the API and reproduce the functionality of each call by treating each function as a black box; i.e. for any data you put in the box, you have to make it spit out the same response.

This is also known as a clean room implementation: recreating the functionality of a piece of software without any knowledge of the internal workings. Other examples of this process include Samba (SMB, the file-sharing protocol used by Windows), Wine (Win32 API) and Office-format filters (.doc, Excel, etc.).
The funny thing is. All the folders in the source directory of NTOSKRNL are the same as the original Windows NT source.
I call it the the black box with a peek hole. Also all these Rtl APIs and Ki APIs are so well done, the one guy who made it much be able to see more than just a black box.

Also, what you forget is the functions that you think are legal but the source of them comes from an illegal disassembly. Such as the POWEROFF.ASM which is a plain disassembe of the WIN.COM from Windows 98 (know it since I have looked into WIN.COM myself for that code). So as long as you steal code from someone else who's stealing it from the real source, then it's okay right?

So all i need to do is steal the code and say I stole it from someone else. Great!

Lucio Diaz
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: España (perdido en el atlantico)

Post by Lucio Diaz »

LOst wrote:
Elledan wrote:
viator wrote:I dont know anthing about programming etc but can you disassemble/decompile? (even if it was illegal) (how would they know heheh) their product look at the code see how they implemented somthing then write your own code that basically does the same thing from scratch?
You can decompile or use other methods (including obtaining a copy of the source code through 'sources') and from that create a similar or identical implementation.

The only legal method, however, is to only look at the API and reproduce the functionality of each call by treating each function as a black box; i.e. for any data you put in the box, you have to make it spit out the same response.

This is also known as a clean room implementation: recreating the functionality of a piece of software without any knowledge of the internal workings. Other examples of this process include Samba (SMB, the file-sharing protocol used by Windows), Wine (Win32 API) and Office-format filters (.doc, Excel, etc.).
The funny thing is. All the folders in the source directory of NTOSKRNL are the same as the original Windows NT source.
I call it the the black box with a peek hole. Also all these Rtl APIs and Ki APIs are so well done, the one guy who made it much be able to see more than just a black box.

Also, what you forget is the functions that you think are legal but the source of them comes from an illegal disassembly. Such as the POWEROFF.ASM which is a plain disassembe of the WIN.COM from Windows 98 (know it since I have looked into WIN.COM myself for that code). So as long as you steal code from someone else who's stealing it from the real source, then it's okay right?

So all i need to do is steal the code and say I stole it from someone else. Great!
To my little knowledge, Win 98 does not have ACPI control, so Poweroff.asm can not be a dissasembly of Win.com

There is no code stealed from microsoft, the windows os series are documented for the use of developers around the world, and just that information is what they need... Even more, there is no need to "disassemble" anything (i doubt you have EVER looked at asm code, specially from big programs, it is REALLY hard to read), what they need is to "catch" the messages bettewn DLLs and the parts of windows, to know what "langage" are using those programs.

Even if anyone WANT to dissasemble a program, he can do, legaly, under the fair use clausule... I know of several sentences where it have been given legal to disasemble a program so a company could make something compatible.

So, dont be a TROLL, and inform yourself, google is soooo handy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Crawler] and 7 guests