Official Betov Allegations Clarification/Resolution Thread

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Alex_Ionescu
Developer
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:49 am

Official Betov Allegations Clarification/Resolution Thread

Post by Alex_Ionescu » Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:54 pm

The Microsoft Files

We, Alex Ionescu and Betov, agree that the files, pointed by Betov, in the ReactOS sources:
  • ...\lib\rtl\i386\
    < alldiv_asm.s >,
    < allmul_asm.s >,
    < allshl_asm.s >,
    < allshr_asm.s >,
    and so on...,

Belong to Microsoft, and are not under GPL. They may be available, for example, at: http://research.microsoft.com/invisible ... ldiv.c.htm

We also agree that a Microsoft license can be found, in the ReactOS sources, at: ...\drivers\storage\class\disk\license.txt

Betov keeps the opinion that using anything from Microsoft, at a time when Microsoft applies its "embrace and extinguish" strategy to any competition, is in complete violation of the GPL spirit, and equates to the death (in an ethical point of view, at least) of the project, which will have no other end, at best, than the history of Linux-WINE ---> Lindows ---> Linspire ---> FreeSpire.

The ReactOS team, and Alex Ionescu, are in the opinion that using these materials is legal, and is not a problem.

Alex Ionescu.
Betov.

Betov
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post by Betov » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:03 am

I see that you couldn't refrain from playing a last trick of yours by playing with the tiltle !

We got an agreement which title was: "The Microsoft Files", that was flat enough for both parties. Or maybe, the fact that "The Microsoft Files" was the title, was not clear enough for your eyes ?!

"Allegations" is abusing of our agreement by implying that i was wrong, whereas i was fully right, since day one, as you finaly admit, after one week of private discussions, in the body of the agreement. I see, here, some sad similarity with the way you violated the fair use of licences, by abusively modifying the head of each of those files for making room to your own name, and by digging an unrelated Licence, in an unrelated Folder.


Betov.

PS. Dispiting your "particular" way of respecting an agreement, my Web-page, devoted to this case, is gone, and will be replaced by another one, explaining the extreemely "strange" status and policy of ReactOS, at the attention of the RosAsm users, who have the right to know that, devoting RosAsm to ReactOS, as a target OS, does no more match with our political and ethical means and claims. I will also explain why and how ReactOS will much probably, halas, fall in the same scandalous track as FreeSpire.

Alex_Ionescu
Developer
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:49 am

Post by Alex_Ionescu » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:20 am

You have to learn to be less paranoid, dude.

I did write "The Microsoft Files" in the body. "Allegations" in English doesn't mean the same thing as in French. In English, someone makes "allegations", then they are resolved.

Read news, you'll always find things like "Joe allegedly killed Mary", even when it is FULLY KNOWN that Joe commited the murder. After that, once a court decides, it's not an allegation anymore.

So my topic meant "Resolution of the Betov allegations". It doesn't imply they're still -allegations-. (However, some are, such as the allegation that Microsoft bought the project -- which I think you seem to realize is not the case).

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:57 am

Betov get off your high horse too because you were not in the right either.

Everyone was in the wrong. In different ways.

Reactos Side

1 A Reactos Developer made minor mistake of importing a file without a copyright notice. File without copyright notice should be checked carefully to avoid this. Outside project had removed the notice.

2 Outside project never got thank you letter to know that someone was using it.

Now Betov. You appear to lack understanding of copyright.

Yes Reactos attached the incorrect copyright notice but it was legally correct as long as it corrected as soon as its proven since it was pointing to the source project.

Now to the points of copyright you got critically wrong.

1 Even a exact match in source does not mean a copyright breach without complete source determination. The files could have been based off a older work or coded by the same developer under different licenses. Matches only ever points to possible breach not a breach.

2 After a possible legal source of the code has been given even if you believe its wrong that is truly the legal end of it from Reactos side. By most countries laws Reactos does not have to audit code it gets from other projects.

3 Outside project was not informed of possible problem located in there source. This is not auditing there code its just passing problem along so they are aware of it.

The number 3 that everyone got wrong is optional for Reactos todo. But was not optional for Betov since Betov believed the answer you got was wrong. Please note I have the emails of doing number 3 and did pass them along and is also the reason why I know Betov did not do it.

Also inside days of being informed did the outside project correct there headers on there files. Would have made your argument past question sooner.

Personally I don't recommend number 3 being optional long term it will be better as standard operation but that is Reactos Developers call.

4 attacked Reactos with a web site without full confirmation. You are really lucky that it did not turn out to be a case of same source legally under two different licenses.

Please everyone learn from the mistakes made here. Don't copy errors made by either side. Also it does not help over lapping with the Reactos common name Ie ROS. That kinda gets peoples backup off the start line since why should they be listening to someone that respects the projects name. Since disrespect is disrespect.

Now everyone say sorry this should have never happened and shake hands.

Mrkaras
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Mrkaras » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:33 pm

I'm glad that was finally acknowledged and explained. it sound like anything allegedly legal has been cleaned up and the rest is just a matter of opinion whether it is right or not, you will just have to live with that part I suppose. maybe somebody Oneida will have nothing better to do and will rewrite them anyway. I hope everybody is satisfied that the result is an acceptable compromise.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:09 am

Mrkaras not required to rewrite them. Since with the correct header and correct license that should have been on the files. The files could be shipped with any license as long as the copyright notice on the files is right. The files are under Microsoft equal license to BSD. If we found BSD code in here somewhere with the same problem would we rewrite it or just correct the header. I don't think anyone would say we should do it for BSD code with the same error.

The only thing that was wrong was the incorrect copyright markers. At worst Microsoft could of done with that. Was contact the source were Reactos got them from and got that fixed then contacted Reactos and told Reactos to fix the code Reactos Imported.

So yes Reactos has been punished at least a 1000 times more than it need to be by this mess. If Microsoft Lawyers have been watching this I bet they have been laugh there heads off at it.

Betov
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post by Betov » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:52 am

The only thing that was wrong was the incorrect copyright markers. At worst Microsoft could of done with that. Was contact the source were Reactos got them from and got that fixed then contacted Reactos and told Reactos to fix the code Reactos Imported.
Stop try to minimize the facts, oiaohm, or i will have to recall you of the long list of "were Reactos got them from", and this thread will get locked, as all of the other ones are, as soon as something of interrest is being discussed. :roll:

Now, the problem is no more "Is there illegal files inside ReactOS?". The demonstration is done and over. The problem is "Which is the policy of ReactOS?". There is no doubt that MicroSoft will sue ReactOS, as soon as it will become a danger for their incomes, even if ReactOS could get 100% clean with a dummy Audit, letting files pass through. The simple menace of law sues, is something that ReactOS could difficultly assume, and you all know of it.

So, the real final question is "Are the guys who actually drive ReactOS dreaming sweet dreams about the 20 millions dollars MicroSoft gave to LinSpire for taking control on the volunteers free works?".

If the answer is "yes", go ahead. You can joyfully play the loop-hole game with MicroSoft Licences.


Betov.

Phalanx
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by Phalanx » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:23 am

I think you will want to worry more about decoding the windows binaries than the rights to files which are ok, and it does not mean MS took it from public domain works before. It's not something you could legally hold rights over too (after all it is basic maths.) Maybe you don't want to talk too much about decoding them for reasons which are not for program support which has been a legal safe guard in the past...

Betov
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post by Betov » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:33 am

After three readings of your post, Phalanx, i can't make any head nor tail of it, and I don't think that a fourth reading will help me to understand what you mean to say... :lol:

If you are talking about the "MicroSoft Files", this debate is over, as far as i am concerned.


Betov.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:59 pm

Betov any large project will have errors. That is the normal thing.

Please don't claim trash.
There is no doubt that MicroSoft will sue ReactOS, as soon as it will become a danger for their incomes.
Besides there is a correct legal process they have to go threw before they can sue.

Step 1 Provide Formal Notice of the defect.
Step 2 Wait at least 30 days for a response
Step 3 if responded to with a possible vaild source disprove that source. That does require contact ie go to step 1 for the vaild source and its.
Step 4 Effective response sue there pants off.

That is the short version. Of course there are rules against stonewalling, intimidating actions and for looped a circle events.

If they skip that process their claim become Null and Void and they risk loss the rights to that section of code. Somehow I don't think Microsoft is that stupid.

Note Betov the damages from the files you found even that in Reactos own to the external project so you were giving notice to the wrong people. If the error is external its kinda game over for attempting to sue Reactos. Most harm is a notification to correct copyright notice inside 30 days due to external project being wrong.

The very system you failed to follow is the very system Microsoft has to follow or risk loss.

Stop trying to spread Fear. Lot of the Fear you are point to is completely false and only just created FUD. The Audit has not be dummy it has been doing exactly what is legally required to defend Reactos. Tracking down the sources of files so when someone asks it can be answered. Its there black and white in the notices attached to files. The files you say were let pass threw was legal and above board to pass threw since source was determined.

I do not play loop-hole game's with Microsoft Licenses. Never have. I play copyright faults by book. Those files appeared many times covered by Microsoft license equal to BSD. If you truly look closely its almost exactly the same words.

The thread was locked yes but person who started thread never presented the information. Z98 in the second message placed a warning in the thread from the start if it was hijacked the thread would be shutdown. Z98 cannot have his role under mined or the forum will return to a useless state.

Person with claim should have started their own thread number two presented complete information to support of their claim. Only a developer after the thread was locked provide any information to possibly back the persons claim. If you wish to do that correctly and formally you will be surprised how tolerant the developers will be. I am not saying that Reactos is problem less. We just don't need people over blowing things or work in FUD. Not backing case correct is FUD.

Please Betov make up what side you are on. You are either on the side of truth or the side of FUD. You cannot be effectively on both sides as you are trying to be. Because saying FUD takes away your credibility and removes your chances of getting to truth.

Since sooner or latter there is going to be a section of source code under two or more different licenses completely legally. Reason same developer created the code. A sole developer is legally allowed to license that code under as many licenses as they like if not restricted by other means. Don't want people to be sued for performing deformation on a project or a programmer. This is a risk for people not playing by the book to get the correct truth.

Betov
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post by Betov » Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:23 pm

On the "MicroSoft files" affair again, oiaohm ?

You mean to give me lessons about how i should have reported ? Three months of reports, before somebody would accept taking a look at the evidences ???!!!... Three months of incredible attacks against me, and against my GPLed Project ???!!!... Our Wikipedia Page removed after an internal conspiration driven from inside the ReactOS team ???!!!... Right today, one more time, our Board Maintainer got an absurd attack Mail from one of the ReactOS fanatics ("aicommander" - i don't even know who this idiot is... -)... and you mean to teach me how to behave ?
Please Betov make up what side you are on.
Mind you, if there is somebody whose status and position cannot be suspect of anything, this is me: Ten years of daily work under GPL + ethical and political restrictions clear claims. All of this for producing a tool concerning, at best, 20 or 30 programmers around the world !!! Yes, you can call me crazy, but you cannot ask me anything about ethic.

So, no, oiaohm, i do not have to make up on what side i am on. Evidently not. As opposed, the leaders of ReactOS evidently have to answer to my above question, that you all seem to prefer ignoring:

"Are the guys who actually drive ReactOS dreaming sweet dreams about the 20 millions dollars MicroSoft gave to LinSpire for taking control on the volunteers free works?".

"Microsoft and ReactOS are not at war. I suspect we will ultimately collaborate" - Alex Ionescu, July 2005 at ALA -

For himself, we already know that he was fully right. Now, does the ReactOS team agrea or disagrea with this so scandalous statement ? This quite simple question is way above the point of discussing if "any large project will have errors", and if this is normal or not: We know, that "errors" have been done, and the demonstration is done that these were not normal, whatever layer of jam you could try to cover them with.


Betov.

artguy10
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:20 am

Post by artguy10 » Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:47 pm

Why would Microsoft help a project which aims to, in effect (though not actually), make a free version of Windows? IMO, they would do anything they can to make it more difficult to develop ROS.

I don't think ReactOS can expect to get money from Microsoft like Linspire did. Linspire was previously Lindows, and a judge doubted the word "Windows" as a trademark, so Microsoft bought the name "Lindows" and the project was renamed "Linspire". There is no such issue with "ReactOS". You don't see Microsoft buying OpenOffice.org, do you? :wink:

Ged
Developer
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ged » Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:53 pm

Betov wrote:Three months of reports, before somebody would accept taking a look at the evidences ???!!!...
You continued to come to the wrong project. We told you time and time again that these files were taken from the SanOS project, but you never once went to them.
Betov wrote: Three months of incredible attacks against me, and against my GPLed Project ???!!!... Our Wikipedia Page removed after an internal conspiration driven from inside the ReactOS team ???!!!...
We asked you time and time again to remove all the references from ReactOS from your project, which you didn't dp, AND STILL HAVE NOT DONE!!
You wikipedia page was probably removed because you refused to cooperate and continued to violate our copyright.
Betov wrote: Right today, one more time, our Board Maintainer got an absurd attack Mail from one of the ReactOS fanatics ("aicommander" - i don't even know who this idiot is... -)... and you mean to teach me how to behave ?
Ban him then. There's no excuse for such behaviour, we certainly don't condone it and we don't want to be related to such people.
btw, do you have a link to this attack?

ThePhysicist
Developer
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:46 pm

Post by ThePhysicist » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:09 pm

Betov wrote:As opposed, the leaders of ReactOS evidently have to answer to my above question, that you all seem to prefer ignoring:
The leaders, devs, testers, the community, all the people supporting ros owe you nothing! AFAICR you did never contribute anything to ReactOS, so why do you think you can demand anything from us?

You can use ReactOS if you like and you can leave it if it is in conflict with your ethical principles. But you cannot demand anything.

Either you want to help this project, then stop accusing us, spreading bullshit and demanding things. Instead start thinking and discussing things in a reasonable manner. Then - and only then - people might in fact stop flaming back and respond with the same reasonable manner.

Or you just want to harm ros or make yourself more important than you are (wich is probably what most people here think), then clear your mind and rethink if this shit is worth wasting our and your time or if it might be better to get a life.

Regards,
Timo

Betov
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post by Betov » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:11 pm

:shock:

Yes, ArtGuy, MicroSoft is really nice: First they give away 20 millions dollars, for "buying a name". [Great: I also want 20 millions dollars for the name of RosAsm, if you want it :D :D :D ]. Then, they signed up an agreement, keeping LinSpire safe from law sues. Then, they gave away Fonts, Audio and Video Codecs, and Live Search will be the default Search engine in LinSpire. The cherry on the wedding cake ! How nice !

How you can miss-understand commercial policies, at _that_ extend, is above my head. LinSpire is now under control, and serves MicroSoft. Period. Who on earth could ever believe that LinSpire would be any *alternative* ? Do you really believe that this was a *name* that was sold ?


Betov.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], DotBot [Crawler], Yandex [Bot] and 3 guests