osfree.org

#261 From: "Oliver Stein" <ostein@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: Digest Number 9 O_Stein
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>An effort to write an OS/2 subsystem for ReactOS (http://reactos.com)
>is starting. Perhaps this will be of interest to you and anyone else
>that wants to get started on out NT compatible-to-be kernel.

hm, I just took a loko at the site... it states:

>Latest News: 28 October 2001:

Seems like it's not a very active project, right?

Regards / Mit freundlichen GrьЯen,
Oliver Stein
InnoTek Systemberatung GmbH

InnoTek at the CeBIT fair (March 13-20, 2002, Hannover, Germany):
Hall 4, booth A04 (IBM Partner booth), demo point D.03

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.innotek.de

#262 From: "Oliver Stein" <ostein@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: Digest Number 9 O_Stein
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>Write IBM *** official *** request: we've found some
>sources here, don't you mind if we build and distribute 'em?

Even if IBM wanted to (which they don't), they can't since they are
not the only ones that have rights to the code. And believe me, the
other one(s) would definitely not support the idea

Regards / Mit freundlichen GrьЯen,
Oliver Stein
InnoTek Systemberatung GmbH

InnoTek at the CeBIT fair (March 13-20, 2002, Hannover, Germany):
Hall 4, booth A04 (IBM Partner booth), demo point D.03

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.innotek.de
phone: +49 7121 209760

#263 From: Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective krissteenhaut
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Michal Necasek schreef:

> the IBM BIOS extensively and wrote a specification based on it.
> Another team never saw a line of IBM code, only the specs. The
> result was Phoenix BIOS, a perfectly legal clone of IBM BIOS
> which basically enabled the whole PC clone market to exist.

Right to the point. That's why I made the comparision with music and music
notation ( which Ullrich was so kind to have a long talk around).
What they (the Phoenix team) did was make out of an existant composition a
new composition, as a composer composes music out of notes and strings and
chords which appear for 100 % in other compositions, copyrighted or not.

A new performance on CD of "L'incoronazione di Poppea" can be copyrighted. As
Monteverdi has passed away a long time ago, there are no authors right
anywhere near.
Copyrighted then is the edition and nothing else.

New composed symphonies by Ilya Canchelli all are liable to autors rights (as
he still is a living phenomena *AND* has subscribed to the "organisation").
But as long as a new composition is published, there are no copyrights at
stake.
Canchelli's sources: music notes, chords , way of instrumentation, and most
important of all, harmony and contrapuntus, the very essence of *any*
composition, these things can't be patented nor copyrighted nor author righted
as the are a part of the public domain. As the letters of the alphabet are and
numbers are and clothing is. It's unthinkable you should have to have a
licence to have your pants on, isn't it?

My point is, strings in a source code are what music notes, chords etc... are
in a symphony. The entire piece may be copyrighted, the parts and bits and
pieces they are build of are generally not, or can't be patented and/or
copyrighted at all.


> I bet
> IBM wasn't very happy about it.
>

And we aren't happy about IBM, aren't we?

--
Groeten uit Gent,

Kris

#264 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


-> Right to the point. That's why I made the comparision with
music and music
> notation ( which Ullrich was so kind to have a long talk
around).
> A new performance on CD of "L'incoronazione di Poppea" can
be copyrighted. As
> Monteverdi has passed away a long time ago, there are no
authors right
> anywhere near.
> Copyrighted then is the edition and nothing else.

Actually that is not true, it would be true if you would have
his original notes. But when you buy the notes for his
composition in a music shop, you get an Arrangement made by
someone else. I.e someone sat down and made them look good,
maybe added something based on a note Monteverdi wrote for
that part. And guess what the person/company who did that
arangement has a copyright on that. Thats why an orcestra
can't just buy I set of notes and just copy them so everybody
has a set of notes.

So back from music to software.
While you don't have an IP on A or #include<stdio.h>
I have one on:

// Copyright 2002 Markus Montkowski

int CheckAndUpdateSection( HWND hwnd, PSECT sect)
{
RECT rect, uprect={0,0,0,0}, *pIntersect;
BOOL fDirty = FALSE;
int rc;

if( ! rc=hwnd->GetVisibleRect(&rect))
{
while(sect)
{
if(pIntersect=RectsIntersect(rect,sect->rect))
{
fDirty= TRUE;
Combinerect(&uprect,pIntersect);
}
sect = sect->next;
}
if(fDirty)
hwnd->InValidate(upRect);
}
return rc;
}

> New composed symphonies by Ilya Canchelli all are liable to
autors rights (as
> he still is a living phenomena *AND* has subscribed to the
"organisation").

He has the copyright weather or not he subscribed to
the "organisation".

> But as long as a new composition is published, there are no
copyrights at stake.

Wrong again, If you take a melody or part of it and reuse
it in your new composition you need his agreement and pay
royalties.

> Canchelli's sources: music notes, chords , way of
instrumentation, and most
> important of all, harmony and contrapuntus, the very essence
of *any*
> composition, these things can't be patented nor copyrighted
nor author righted
Not as an individual part, but a theam can.

> My point is, strings in a source code are what music notes,
chords etc... are
No a single character is what a note is, not a string.
> in a symphony. The entire piece may be copyrighted, the
parts and bits and pieces they are build of are generally
not, or can't be patented and/or copyrighted at all.

Well sure they can, The Overture of a musical piece is covered
by the copyright of the complete piece. So you can't take it
and put it in your piece. You can use the Note C but if
you copy more than X notes (Number of X depends on the
country) that follow on each other you broke the copyrigth of
the author.

YOu might not like it and def don't understand copyright
law rules, but thats how they are.

#265 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 6:19 pm
Subject: Re: NewOS mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:56:14 -0800 (PST), Jason Filby wrote:

>Wouldn't ReactOS -- aiming to be an NT clone -- be a better fit?
>
Why ?

I dont know that much about kernels and I'm not capable to compare
alternatives but the Win NT kernel is far from modern.

Also, what as important for osFree is that the kernel is capable of
easily supporting the OS/2 APIs we need to implement.

What I found out about ReactOS is that is uses lots of Linux code
and has very litte indication that it does. Does not say on the
webpage and does not say in the binary distro.
But thats not hard to fix I assume.

Anyway. What you are doing is trying to graft a Windows NT
compatible kernel into lots of Linux code. This may very
well work but my personal feeling is that osFree either should
have a close as possible OS/2 kernel or as new and modern
kernel as possible
.
If not we should graft it on the Linux kernel at once.
Linux is GNU opensource, has hoards of developers and lots
and lots of drivers.




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#266 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:44:38 +0100, Kris Steenhaut wrote:

>
>numbers are and clothing is. It's unthinkable you should have to have a
>licence to have your pants on, isn't it?
>
Well, in the US genetic code can be patented. What happens if that code
leaks via a virus and ends up in your body.
Would you need a licence to live ?
And if it finds its way into your sex cells, would mating become something
for BSA to be interested in .
(ROFLMAO)

I promised no to discuss legalese any more but I could not refuse this one.




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#267 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My perspective mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 12:31:46 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:

>So back from music to software.
>While you don't have an IP on A or #include<stdio.h>
>I have one on:
>
>// Copyright 2002 Markus Montkowski
>
>int CheckAndUpdateSection( HWND hwnd, PSECT sect)
>{
> RECT rect, uprect={0,0,0,0}, *pIntersect;
> BOOL fDirty = FALSE;
> int rc;
>
> if( ! rc=hwnd->GetVisibleRect(&rect))
> {
> while(sect)
> {
> if(pIntersect=RectsIntersect(rect,sect->rect))
> {
> fDirty= TRUE;
> Combinerect(&uprect,pIntersect);
> }
> sect = sect->next;
> }
> if(fDirty)
> hwnd->InValidate(upRect);
> }
> return rc;
>}
>
Then look at the code segment below.
Have I infringed on your copyright ??


/******************************************************/
/* CAUSection: Bla, Bla, Bla */
/* Copyright 2002 somone else */
/******************************************************/
int CAUSection( HWND hwnd, PSECT sect)
{
BOOL bIsDirty = FALSE;
RECT rect, rectU={0,0,0,0}, *pIntersect;
int rc;


rc = hwnd->GetVisibleRect(&rect)
if ( ! rc)
{
while (sect)
{
if (pIntersect=RectsIntersect(rect, sect->rect))
{
bIsDirty= TRUE;
Combinerect (&rectU, pIntersect);
}
sect = sect->next;
}
if (bIsDirty)
{
hwnd->InValidate(upRect);
}
}
return (rc);
}





Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#268 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:29:14 -0800 (PST), Michal Necasek wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 04:47:43 -0000, cowwoc2001 wrote:
>
>> Basically my view is that you should do whatever you want with the
>>stolen source-codes (if the source-code is indeed stolen), but make
>>sure to never release anything based upon stolen sources to the
>>public. Meaning that you start off using "bad code" with no public
>>releases and as time goes by you rewrite more and more of the "bad
>>code" with your own and release that. The beauty in such a technique
>>is that you'll easily trace new bugs back to the source by comparing
>>with the original code.
>>
> I wonder how many people remember what Phoenix Technologies did
>back in early 1980's (I don't from personal experience). They took
>source listings or IBM PC ROM BIOS (perhaps disassemblies too),
>those were published in the Technical Reference. One team studied
>the IBM BIOS extensively and wrote a specification based on it.
>Another team never saw a line of IBM code, only the specs. The
>result was Phoenix BIOS, a perfectly legal clone of IBM BIOS
>which basically enabled the whole PC clone market to exist. I bet
>IBM wasn't very happy about it.
>
And it was legal ruled in court as legal !

This means we could have one team debugging/disassembling and
SYM file read the kernel and write specifications.
Then a team that only reads the specis and build a new kernel.

And I all would be legal ?

How many of you would think it would be "unetical" and would not
participate in such activities (regardless of the fact that it may
be much smarter to use an existing opensource modern kernel) ??




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#269 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 6:43 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:20:10 +0700, Bsobla Mage wrote:


>Phoenix Technologies - IBM - BIOS
>----------------------------------------------------
>Michal, I believe that your response is factually incorrect, pleasant as it is.
>I suggest that all check google using "reverse engineer IBM PC" for a more
documented
>history and 'color'.
>
Michal (thats how he spells it is in fact correct.

IIRC Phoenix started by doing a "maybe not quite legal" design. IBM started
breathing
behind their neck (remember this was BIG business for IBM back then).
Phoenix switch to the clean room design but IBM sued them anyway.
Needless to say, IBM lost and we dont use MCA machines with
"licenced IBM technology" badges on them.
I still wonder if its better with "Intel inside" and "Microsoft Windows XX"
stickers...







Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

#270 From: "Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future lynnmaxson
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


J. Christopher Kennedy writes:
"If I am understanding you correctly, what you are describing is
FORTH, invented in 1970 by Chuck Moore. In Forth, the basic unit
of reuse is the word, not the source file. ..."

I am quite familiar with Charles Moore's Forth. As an innovator I
have as much respect for his contribution as I do McCarthy's for
LISP and Iverson for APL. Unfortunately I have zero respect for
K&R's C.<g>

What I am describing is a method of storing, retrieving, and
maintaining source independent of programming language involved.
The method provides a means of software automation for software
documentation both source code and source text. In essence it
regards them as two sides of the same coin, treating them
indentically and allowing them to be combined in any manner in
full support of Knuth's "Literate Programming".

What it shares with Forth is the concept of a central directory,
in Forth the dictionary, in which the actual source raw material
is stored only once, given a name, and that name appears
representing its use elsewhere. That means as it does in Forth
that a change to the source is instantly reflected throughout is
uses. Forth implementations, however, use the address of the
dictionary entry instead of a literal name as is used in the
system I describe.

Thus a Forth program consists of an ordered list of addresses,
each of which represents a single primitive operator (a raw
material) or a non-primitive operator (an assembly of the names of
other non-primitive operators and primitive operators). In this
sense Forth does follow the manufacturing paradigm of raw material
and assemblies wherein the only actual source stored is the raw
material and the assemblies only a list of references.

Currently whether writing source code (programming) or source text
(documenting) the primary storage mechanism is a source file, an
assembly. It is impossible in such a mode to automate source
processing in a fully global manner. Each use of a source
statement is replicated in every source file in which it appears,
except for the clumsy mechanism of the "include" statement. The
"include" statement could work if it referred to a single
statement. Then the program would consist of an ordered list of
include statements.

The problem here is that you have to write one include statement
for each different source statement and you would have to give it
a unique name. It also means you would have to create a named
source file entry for every statement you were going to use prior
to writing the referencing include statement. To impose this
system on programmers would be to invite a revolution to take
place.<g>

To eliminate source files (assemblies) as the raw material (named
components) of programming you use a database approach. In so
doing you only have to have an entry for each source statement,
which is the "actual" raw material of programming. You can then
create named assemblies of raw material and other named
assemblies. What is different here is the software giving a
"unique name" to each source statement, not the programmer. The
programmer writes, sees, and works with the actual source code.
Only the software deals with its actual internally stored form.
Only the software maintains and retrieves it.

Statement reuse is automatic. If you change a statement, then you
change its (unique) name. The question is if you want the change
reflected only in the assembly in which you have changed it or if
you want the change reflected wherever the statement appears or
something inbetween. This system allows the software to present a
"where used", so that you can "see" the global implication of a
change, and the ability to designate on an assembly basis whether
to reflect the change or not.

Now note that any such reflected change in an assembly changes its
unique name at least in the index portion. This is how you
automate version control. It's a builtin facility of the software
automation. You have version control on everything from raw
material on up both on source code and source text and their
combinations. You have nothing in CVS this comprehensive.