How is it ReactOS don't get into trouble for this by Windows

[classicgamelover85]

I have a friend who argues that this OS is stealing. He insists that what ReactOS is doing is copyright infringement. That anything that is built like windows is a copycat. Know what I mean? If it can do what windows can do, then how is it this is NOT infringing on any laws???? That's the big question right now. I looked through this whole area and having found one single topic yet created about this. So I think its a good time to pop this question for anyone new to this OS. Thanks.

[Haos]

http://www.howtogeek.com/55985/how-to-m ... windows-7/
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window ... sktop/3103

He can also try to accuse Wine. Not sure where are you guys from, but in EU, APIs cannot be patented, nor can be UI look and feel.

[Z98]

Your friend is demonstrating staggering ignorance when it comes to intellectual property. In both the EU and the US, it is legal to produce functionally identical implementations of an existing API/framework. Both the EU and the US just rather strongly reinforced this point recently to shut down Oracle's attempts to sue Google for reimplementing the Java standard library.

[classicgamelover85]

Well keep the replies coming, cuz I'm finding this very interesting.

[jonaspm]

my computer teacher claims that too, now with this, im gonna knock him out >:)

[classicgamelover85]

Well how about that. Its probably a good thing I started this topic. Its time people be educated on how the laws work...

[DOSGuy]

The short answer is that you can't copyright functionality, which is an abstract concept. You can copyright words or sounds or images -- something that you can see or hear. You can copyright the "what", not the "how".

Now, if your friend really knew what he was talking about, he would have mentioned patents instead of copyright. Patenting is how you protect the "how". Apple and Samsung and Google aren't suing each other over copyright violations! It's possible to patent functionality, and that's where you have to be careful. ReactOS could be sued for including a "swipe to unlock" gesture, or some other trivial thing that has no right to be patented because it isn't revolutionary. (The original purpose of patent law was to protect paradigm-altering ideas. An expert in the field has to find that the invention is clearly brilliant. Now you can patent any damn thing, no matter how unimportant or obvious, but this is getting off topic.) Any project can, and does, inadvertently violate someone's patent because every god damn thing in the universe is patented now. But courts in several countries have affirmed that APIs aren't protected, so Wine is okay on that front. And if Wine is okay, then ReactOS is okay.

Interesting trivia:

Coleco made an adapter that made it possible to play Atari 2600 games on the ColecoVision. Atari sued, but the courts sided with Coleco, finding that Coleco had merely built a functionally identical device to the Atari 2600 using generic parts, and did not steal any trade secrets or include any copyright infringing code in doing so. Their rights affirmed, to really stick it to Atari, Coleco actually started selling a Coleco-branded standalone Atari 2600 console called the Gemini.

There must be, what, close to a thousand reasonably popular emulators out there. Why has no one sued MAME or FCEUX or Meka or Project64 or any of the other hundreds of emulators? Because writing code that mimics the behavior of hardware is not illegal. Emulators are not allowed to include any copyrighted ROM code, so the emulator authors either have to write their own, original firmware, or require that users provide their own copy of the necessary ROMs that the system may depend upon.

Ask your friend why it isn't illegal for OpenOffice.org to be able to read and write Word documents, or why it isn't illegal for Microsoft Word to read and write WordPerfect documents. Both Word and WordPerfect are copyrighted software, right? Supporting someone else's standards is not illegal, as long as you duplicate that functionality using original code. WinRar is allowed to support .ZIP files and 7z is allowed to support .RAR files. Likewise, ReactOS is allowed to support Windows executables.

[classicgamelover85]

Wow that is so cool! my friend and I the day we argued it (just debated it really) we were cool and all about it. but since I was uneducated, I just let it be for the time being. He's real big about following laws and stuff. This is why, probably, he thought this OS wasn't following the laws. I can understand. Its cool and all. The debate between us didn't last long, we moved on past it short after it started. Which is what I like about him, is that drama don't go hand in hand with him--he's good at avoiding it. I like to avoid it too. But anyways, when I first found this OS I was ecstatic! I couldn't believe something like this existed! I can't wait until it becomes ready for everyday use! I mean really! But to tell people about it, and to win them over FOR IT, we new-comers need to know what makes it okay. Right now, I now know what makes it legal and I thank you for your responses. This way I now have a way to back it up. Most people prefer to follow the laws. so this way I can show them that they are following laws. That they are indeed remaining within the laws boundaries. I live in the US. Thanks.

[b4dc0d3r]

You might be interested in InfoZip (zlib). Phil Katz wrote pkzip, which used a patented compression method. InfoZip implemented a binary-compatible library without the patent infringement. Compression and decompression are compatible, just different.

You also may be interested in the Oracle / Google lawsuit as mentioned. Sun claimed that an API was copyrightable, the verdict was that was not. (Also 9 lines of obviously copied code was so simple and obvious the judge beat the prosecution's estimate of 6 months for implementation by about 5.999 months). This applies to a single country (yours) and as noted your local laws may vary (yours specifically do not, at this time).

In the United States a lot of things are pretty much a crap-shoot, depending on who your judge is and who your jury is. I would ignore the Samsung/Apple results, as the jury findings may be improper and a full or partial do-over may be called.

In other countries, and developers live all over the place, different rules apply. As with any international project, development takes an international law perspective, while your individual usage depends on where you live. In the United States it is possible to download a legally developed software and still owe patent royalties.

Now, let's go into the twilight zone for a moment. Microsoft does not consider ReactOS any serious competition. Partly because it doesn't work well on most hardware. And partly because it still has bugs. And partly because no corporation like IBM is backing it and providing it on sold hardware, potentially making a profit. And mostly because there is no large backer that Microsoft can sue like they did with the hypothetical patents against Linux. One involved attorney explained, “Microsoft has been doing this for years, although I don't know whether a patent cross license, as compared to a monetary payment, has usually been part of the deal.” An executive added, “ In our case we had no patents of our own. We had to sign an NDA [non-disclosure agreement] barring us from revealing any of the Microsoft's Linux infringement claims.”

If anyone revealed the patents, Linux developers would just re-implement them a different way and the lawsuit would go away. But it hasn't happened, because they want the money, and the NDA prevents that. In 2009, TomTom's suit had revealed that FAT filesystem was one patent, and Linux coded non-infringing code. Microsoft vs Salesforce revealed something potentially dangerous, the most damaging expiring in 2015. AFAIK ReactOS does not implement that at all. A great source is http://linuxpatents.blogspot.com/ and it notes that many patents could, or should, be invalidated. ReactOS does not have the resources to contest them right now, and would not have standing to do so (where you live) unless sued, or filing support as amicus curiae.

ReactOS isn't earning money. And if any of those involved Wine code, ReactOS would sync with Wine updates and problem solved. In the rare event that non-Wine ReactOS code infringed, the case would likely be tried in a district of Texas, USA, where most developers, the project coordinator, and at least one non-profit foundation, do not live. I doubt it would make it to a court session, being thrown out before preliminaries would occur.

To be blunt: Even if ReactOS blatantly infringed on something, Microsoft does not have a cash cow to milk, nor a venue in which to milk it. All technicalities aside, in which ReactOS is legitimately legal, this is the real answer. Remember, anyone can cause problems for anyone for any reason, especially in Microsoft's home country. Even if you do not have legal standing, you can file any lawsuit you wish. Most nonsense is thrown out. Most of the remaining nonsense does not survive pre-trial motions. Most of the rest does not survive the first hearing.

The final answer: you would have to ask Microsoft legal counsel why they have not tried to attack the project for a factual answer. They could be waiting, they could have found it non-infringing, or some sort of legal proceeding could be in the works. Most people believe it is legal, or non-encumbered, or covered by compatibility exemptions. As with most everything else in law, it is unknown for certain until tested, and as we have seen those can result in terrible decisions reversed on appeal. I would recommend a law degree specializing in Intellectual Property for a complete answer. You would need some financially successful entity, in a patent-friendly country, backing or using ReactOS, to even provoke a response.

In the worst case, ReactOS serves in the same function as most emulators. Documenting the functionality of older systems to provide a platform of execution while infringing copyright nor patent willingly nor knowingly. Some emulators are software implementations of the circuit design, and as such exist outside of the lifespan of a patent, but this does not apply.

[rembrandt]

.......

The final answer: you would have to ask Microsoft legal counsel why they have not tried to attack the project for a factual answer. .....

My guess is that they don't care about the coding project at all. They'll go after parties that will attempt to profit from ReactOS; for instance if a Lenovo or Acer issues a laptop with ReactOS pre-installed, they'll hit them with a patent lawsuit, with the end result the customer will still pay for a Windows license even though ROS is installed.

[classicgamelover85]

Question. NTOSKRNL.exe is one of the files loaded while ReactOS starts. Tell me about this file. Is this part of an API? Or framework? This same file is found under the Microsoft Windows XP OS, so why are you using it? Its found in all Microsoft NT based OS, and in the C:\windows system32 folder and etc etc. So why are you not sued for using this file? The better question would be what protects you from using this file and not getting hit by Microsoft for it?

[Z98]

You do realize that we have files that use the same names as those in Windows? And that a name by itself does not mean the files are the same? Cause I could rename firefox.exe ntoskrnl.exe, but that does not make firefox.exe ntoskrnl.exe.

[milon]

Also, certain filenames must be used because that's what all the apps/drivers will expect to find. Ultimately, ReactOS is just following convention in order to be compatible. Which is our main goal.

[SomeGuy]

ReactOS is a 100% genuine original open source operating system. The only bits it has in common with Microsoft Windows(TM) are publicly documented and needed for compatiblity. File names are one of those.

This should be obvious. This feels like a troll thread.

[DOSGuy]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I see the humor in explaining how stupid the question was.

If classicgamelover85 and I have the same real name, does that mean that we're the same person? If not, then maybe it's also possible for files of the same name to be different files.

And if classicgamelover85 and I have the same real name, and he was born first, can he sue me for stealing his name? If not, then maybe it's also legal for two programs to have files with the same name. In fact, a significant percentage of all of the programs ever released have had a file called install.exe. How they can all get away with that without being sued by the owner of the original install.exe is beyond me.