jimtabor's accusations

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

chorns
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:47 am

Post by chorns »

oiaohm wrote:Please Look at the locked files chorns. http://www.reactos.org/generated/locked_files.log

Most what is left is C files that source cannot be determined. Ie cannot find author or find any matching sources.

Most of the suspected asm ones were under a valid license from Microsoft to use legally use just they were tagged wrong. If people had done there homework correctly off the start line lots of problems could have been avoided. Not one person in the mess did everything right.

I hold nothing against you chorns for closing the repository. Main point is GPL clearly allowed you to do such a action. Section 7 to be truthful. In case of something being wrong person has the right to stop distribution. As long as they truly stop distribution of it. Its the integrity clause of GPL.

It does concern me that jimtabor did not understand the effects of this clause in the GPL licence.

Jimtabor of course look back to learn how everyone screwed up. Most people were doing what they thought was the correct thing to do. The bigger problem was the project of Reactos had no policies to handle that kind of event. so wild west broke out. Developers like you Jimtabor were left in dark. Some people took actions that they though was required to save there own skin. I cannot blame a person for that it was panic.

I still think a Official history laying down each persons motivations, panic and mistakes. Note the Official History would be a good thing to check current policy against to make sure it could stop that from repeating. Lot of people here are just guilt of being humans and fighting with each other in criss. Said to say its the normal human thing to do.
The boot sector files are unlocked:
http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trun ... /bootsect/

chorns
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:47 am

Post by chorns »

forart wrote:As always, money is the PROBLEM.

I think we have to learn from Haiku team(s), in this battlefield... (or from Ardour too)
Where is money involved in this?

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

Post by oiaohm »

Number 1 Betov How many times do people have to answer this. Source of files was determined. An external project. That you never contacted. What anyone wanted to take legal action or prove their case would have been required to do so. Instead you made a pest out of yourself.

You are the one who has made a mount out of a mole hill by not doing the right thing.

On topic on those files. Please note the missing Microsoft Header Markers might truly be legal. The earliest license that Microsoft placed on those files had the same flaw as the artistic license no note about preservation of copyright notices. So legally those files may have never been in conflict.

You better hope for you that a ruling is never made backing that fact. Because then you are purely guilty of a deformation against Reactos Betov. That would be really sad because you would have caused this project so much annoyance over nothing. Make sure your house is in order before throwing stones.

You are dealing with person who sees the world very much in black and white Betov. If a file is legal to use it has every right to be there. If a files source of the file is known it also has the right to be there. Because if you have conflict with it you really should have contacted were Reactos sourced it from.

Don't you dare do deformation against me again Betov. I have integrity always. If you cannot tolerate hitting a legal brick wall don't start insulting the person its a fast way to get really badly hurt. The legal way of doing things is the only way I tolerate. Since if you had followed the legal way you would not be at risk now. I have no political interest in open source. I don't care who the code is from as long as its legal to use.

Windows Linux Freebsd kernels are all a mixture of licenses inside so why are you expecting Reactos to be different.

Please note the clause in gpl common name is "the integrity clause". So what are you saying I cannot use the common name for part of the GPL license.

Number 2 chorns if you want more information about those files. Just ask the information will be provided to you.

And thanks for a nice correct answer to forart.

GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG »

Is this still the policy of the ReactOS project or has the policy been changed?

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

Post by Betov »

chorns if you want more information about those files. Just ask the information will be provided to you.
:D :D :D Which files will you send him? Trying to dupe people again?


Betov.

2th_noname
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:04 am

Post by 2th_noname »

oiaohm wrote:Please Look at the locked files chorns. http://www.reactos.org/generated/locked_files.log

Most what is left is C files that source cannot be determined. Ie cannot find author or find any matching sources.
This is simply wrong. The list contains files, which are locked currently. This does not mean, that all unlocked files has pass the audit. If you look to reactos/ntoskrnl/ke, you will see that only one of 17 files got an 'active' audit. All other files had lost the locked state by a normal commit. If you have a closer look to the repository, you will find many files, which are unlocked by this way. At most, 25% of the C and ASM files have got an 'active' unlock by the audit. All other files wasn't audited. The so called audit is simply a fake.

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

Post by oiaohm »

Betov no tricks I am not even the person who is going to answer him over those files. The answer had nothing to do with you.

People do have a right to ask how particular files cleared audit and to disprove prove reason if they wish. The disproving bit was something you never got right Betov. There is a legally correct way to do it.

Yet no one here is under any legal obligation to tell you what files people ask about. So don't try to get information you are not legally entitled to.

Please stop attempting deformation against my person Betov. I would never dupe people.

Now what worries me more is your interest Betov in a issue that has nothing to do with you and your attempt to get information you have legal right to for. I really have to wonder if the attacks against my person are being done to cover up something else you are up to Betov.

I work with min information about Reactos for a reason. So that either the person facing me has the information to prove the case or they don't. Attempting to extract information from me it is pointless Betov. Reason I am not a core developer or approved Reactos member. So in court what I say has no legal standing. So I am a ideal person to test if people have true information about flaws in Reactos or not. Because a typo from me is not usable. Let just call the the filter if you have a case and prove it legally you will be able to beat me. Then by any legal means required I will get it fixed.

GvG I still think that is current policy. There have been a few talks about changing wording in places.

2th_noname there will be a explanation coming.

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

Post by Betov »

Attempting to extract information from me it is pointless Betov.
Thanks for saying, my friend. :lol: :lol: :lol:

A hard job, isn't it?


Betov.

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

Post by Ged »

I just wanna point out the audit list is wrong, the script is broken.
I've updated the script, but it hasn't been applied to the webserver yet.

Nice to see some old faces, shame about the circumstance.

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Post by jimtabor »

chorns wrote:Wow, Jim, you really need someone to blame for the mess. Well, it's alright, I don't need you to like me, but you will confuse many other people who read your claims. Like GvG, I will encourage you to provide evidence for your claims. Here is a bit of clarification for anyone interrested:

The illegal code is still in the repository, but you just don't want to see it...because it don't suit your goals. You claim I tried to delete the repository. I've got all the posts on the ros-priv mailing list in my mailbox to prove you wrong. Just let me know if your claim is still valid, and I will put the e-mails up for download for everyone to see. You probably won't like what else information is in there, because it doesn't suit your goals of ignoring the facts and keeping the public not knowing about them.

Do the right thing, Jim. Rewrite the illegal code. I know it's hard to rewrite complex assembly code and only a few people are able to do it and it's time consuming, but it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!
Thank you for clarifying my point.

You saw the leaked source! I have no idea where the illegal code is! How can I remove something I haven't seen! Now you all see my point.

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Post by jimtabor »

chorns wrote: You claim I tried to delete the repository. I've got all the posts on the ros-priv mailing list in my mailbox to prove you wrong. Just let me know if your claim is still valid, and I will put the e-mails up for download for everyone to see. You probably won't like what else information is in there, because it doesn't suit your goals of ignoring the facts and keeping the public not knowing about them.
I guess the two heroes I written about are liars too. I'm not making this up! No sir! This is based on questions and information from the rest of the developers. So you and GvG need to think about this very hard. I'm not the only one think this way. If you want to open the books, I will too! I can throw the first stone! Let us see what you have!

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Post by jimtabor »

Betov wrote:
You never admitted there was a "problem", until i had no other choice but to make the evidences public.
Betov,
You are right! The problem with Casper is he knew before the audit and with great shock by me he stated it in our private IRC. That means he knew long before you presented the evidence to us.

My thanks go out to you Betov!
James

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Post by jimtabor »

oiaohm wrote: It does concern me that jimtabor did not understand the effects of this clause in the GPL licence.
Don't worry, I know it. It was okay then to do it, why not now. Since the illegal code is still there. What are the changes from that time and now? What is different?

GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG »

jimtabor wrote:You saw the leaked source! I have no idea where the illegal code is!
No, we just read http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ ... 07393.html

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Post by jimtabor »

GvG wrote:
jimtabor wrote:You saw the leaked source! I have no idea where the illegal code is!
No, we just read http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ ... 07393.html
Rehash old trash!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest