osfree.org

#211 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:49 pm
Subject: Coding conventions: first draft criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi all,

this is the first draft about coding conventions. It is attached to the
message. I'll complete it as soon as I can.

JMA, what do you think? I tried to stay "light" on requirements, as I
agree with Michal that the most important thing is for the code to be
readable.

To the webmaster: I think it should be published on the webpage,
together with the message where JMA stated a few fules for developing
(the use of OpenWatcom, etc). You can still find it on Yahoo Groups.

Bye

Cris

#212 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: My take on this.. Not legal to use IBM source drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>The problem with using IBMs source code is that a serious company
> >and/or coder will not be associated with the project. Besides IBM can
> >pull the plug on the project any time they wish - andthey will
> >actually have do this, when they find out about the project. If they
> >don't defend their interlectual property they might loose the right
to it.
> >

> What does IBM stand to lose or gain ?
>
> Its quite obvious for everyone that can read that IBM is pulling the
plug
> from under OS/2. Next year it will be impossible to purchase a OS/2
> licence from IBM without some very special (read expensive) contract.
> In 2006 IBM will stop supporting OS/2.
As of 1978 IBM stoped supporting one of it Mainfrain OSes in 2002,
there are still customers using it and
people at IBM doing support/adding features to it. Thats 24 Years
after the offical end of support date.

> Why would IBM bother to sue some small developer. It would hit the press
> at once and everyone would write about it as the "big bad blue"
giant that
> kills the OS and the developers as people that want to salvage the
hobbyis
> OS/2 operating system to the opensource community.
>
> IBM would gain from not bothering in public but use the knowledge in
private
> when talkning to their customers.

Well the IP laws are quite clear, you loose the right
to call something your IP if you don't enforce enfringements of the
IP. Thats why companies like
adidas sue webpages which offer their logo as a mobil logo download.
They have to they are legaly bound to
do so. So what would IBM loose, nothing much just complete IP to OS/2.
And remember IBM makes money with
this even when not selling OS/2. OLE in windows is based
on OS/2 IP and MS pays IBM for the rigth to use it.

#213 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: license issues (GPL or not) drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>
> >- allow distributors to sell osFree.
> No
Why not after all that is what happens with Linux as well. And after
all you normally pay not for the OS
but for media, dokumentation, installer and the possibility to get
support.

> >- allow to bundle osFree with closed source commercial/shareware
applications and sell it as one package
> >
> Yes.

#214 From: <bird@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared out first!!! os2bird
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, JMA wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:30:41 -0000, os2bird wrote:
>
> >It will _never_ be clean if these legal issues
> >remain unsolved.
> >
> I dont quite follow you.
As long as osFree is associated with legally unconfirmed binaries it will
not be clean.

> This project has a requirment that anyone participating
> MUST follow. They may think what they want but the
> MUST follow what I wrote.
>
> >But, I am unable to join in as long as the
> >"technology preview" is available
> >from www.osfree.org and not yet legally confirmed
> >or condemnd.
> >
> Thats understandable.
>
> Now you put me in a hard position. Some people will
> not join if the binaries are there. Some peole will leave
> if the binaries are removed.
I see. but those who made them can answer to my question about how they
were built. From what sources. Are the binaries built in a legal way that
would be greate! If not, then that's just life, and they should be happy
about not being contacted by any legal people (yet)...

> I as you would like a quick resolution of this
> Are the binaries "build from leaks"(*) or are they "just"
> released without the correct credits.
>
> The difference between you and me is that I dont
> want to wait. So I stated rules for this project:
> ====================================
> I did a requirment: Follow it or dont participate !
> ====================================
>
> I'll ensure the TPE distro is removed as soon as its
> proven "build from leaks". But I cannot take arguments
> like Eiriks: "I have the sources so I would know !"
> His arguments are far to dangerous !
>
> (*) I refuse to use the word illegal until its proven in
> court, but thats just me
>
Yeah, but I would try stay out of court in the first place, not having to
proove anything is legal..
>
> >It's interseting what OpenBeOS states about the
> >same problem in they're faq:
> >http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/faq.php
> >
> OK let me say I added this to osFree:
>
================================================================================
===================
> I heard a rumor that some official IBM OS/2 source code has been leaked. That
would be great for the osFree project, right?
>
> Wrong !
>
> To be crystal clear about this, osFree wants in no way to come in contact with
or be associated with any leaked IBM OS/2 source code.
> Having access to that code could potentially be very damaging to the project,
not to mention a legal nightmare.
>
================================================================================
===================
>
> Would this mean that everone that has seen the sources will not be able to
participate ?
> In that case I must (if I'm to believe Eirik) remove most professional OS/2
developers from the project.
>
> Or should I just ignore that lots of people that more or less admits they have
the sources and go ahead anyway ?
>
> Thats why I wrote the rule as I did. If you have seen the source I dont want
you to be left out. But I dont want any IBM OS/2 source
> code in osFree unless IBM allows us !

If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be up to the individual
developer if he feels 'clean' enough to participate. Though if someone
gives the impression to have sources and still works on the project that
will still be problemous.

You problem now, is that few will believe that the members of osFree
haven't seen any sources.

Btw. It's weekend now. See you next week

Kind Regards,
knut

#215 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: What do you need to participate ? mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:42:22 -0000, os2bird wrote:

Could you please answer the question I put:

What would it take for you to activly participate in the project ?


>>bit dumb but its no longer illegal.
>Sorry, not here in norway.
>
Ah, you not part of the EU.
What I say is legal in atleast EU and Russia (right Kris?)

>>===discussion===================================
>>Its not illegal to disassemble the file or the
>whole OS.
>That's correct for me. But not necessarily for a US
>citizen.
>
>>Its not illegal to spread this to everyone that:
>>*has an existing IBM os/2 Warp 4 licence*
>Sorry. That's not necessarily true in all
>countries. And as long as it isn't, I
>cannot see why osFree should do so.
>I for example can't use anything published like
>that, that will be illegal.
>You can perhaps post a patch, like Daniella (IIRC)
>did for the os2ldr. But a
>full binary, not in norway at least.
>
I doubt Danis patch is more legal than the whole
OS but who would care

Dani has proven that she has disassembled or debugged
the file by releasing the patch. The question will rather
be. She did her work in Germany where its (as I understand)
legal. Is it then legal for you to use it (assuming her work
was legal in Germany).

Now look, we are getting into gray zones...


>>Its stupid to spread compiled variant of a
>disassembly
>>and not add the licence text. Its probably also
>illegal
>>but I doubt anyone meant it that way.
>Well then it got to be fixed. I guess it's no
>coincidence that you can't find
>the osf_[en|ru].* files on hobbes anymore..
>
The reason for not finding them on hobbes is that hobbes
has a policy you must follow as an uploader (if its possible
to force that policy without a written licence is another thing).
They are free to remove what they want at their discretion.
So if "someone" mailed them and screamed "illegal" I must
fully understand they removved it.

So, it did not matter if it really was "illegal" or not.

>>But it may be as stupid...
>Here in norway you can't do so. Sorry.
>And I'm afraid US laws are stricter than the
>norwegian.
>
Well, this is yet another impossible neither black
nor white thing.
Some things are legal in some countries some are not.

And that yet another reason I added the rule...
======================================================



Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

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

#216 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:06 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi,

> >
> > >- allow distributors to sell osFree.
> > No
> Why not after all that is what happens with Linux as well. And after
> all you normally pay not for the OS
> but for media, dokumentation, installer and the possibility to get
> support.

Noone sells Linux. They sell the media, the services, the manuals,
sometimes additional software, but noone can seel Linux itself.

Bye

Cris

#217 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared outfirst!!! criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi,

> If you add that text, like OpenBeOS, it will be up to the individual
> developer if he feels 'clean' enough to participate. Though if someone
> gives the impression to have sources and still works on the project that
> will still be problemous.
>
> You problem now, is that few will believe that the members of osFree
> haven't seen any sources.

?????

Knut, do you understand that by making this statement (and after all
that has been discovered on this list about "leaked" sources) and
abiding to it, you shouldn't be able to buy nearly any more OS/2 software?

One example: did you download the Flash 5 player? Well, one of the most
influent members of Innotek has implicitely admitted here the he has the
leaked sources.
And what about VirtualPC? And Odin? And Opera?

Bye

Cris

#218 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: Unable to help: What do you need to participate ? drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


-
> >
> I doubt Danis patch is more legal than the whole
> OS but who would care
>
> Dani has proven that she has disassembled or debugged
> the file by releasing the patch. The question will rather
> be. She did her work in Germany where its (as I understand)
> legal. Is it then legal for you to use it (assuming her work
> was legal in Germany).

Well it was legal for her to do so because the OS2LDR had
a bug/feature which prevented it to run fully on her system. Rev.
engineering is allowed in that special case.
And of course every developer who ever wrote a driver
has debugged parts of the kernel, during debuggin of his
own driver. Again legal you want your driver and the system to
interoperate.
It's illegal in every country if you want to create
a product which compeeds with the original.
All part of WIPO laws/treaties.

#219 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: license issues (GPL or not) drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>
> Noone sells Linux. They sell the media, the services, the manuals,
> sometimes additional software, but noone can seel Linux itself.
>
Of course you can there is no part in the GPL which
forbids this. You have to provide the sources and your
customer can freely give them on. So the question is
if you can make a buisnes case just selling it.
And if you sell something shrinkwraped you always have a
media ...

#220 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: Unable to help: LEGAL issues must be cleared outfirst!!! drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


> One example: did you download the Flash 5 player? Well, one of the most
> influent members of Innotek has implicitely admitted here the he has the
> leaked sources.

No one of Innotek ever said so!
What you prob. don't know is that Achim worked for IBM
and thus did know that sources leaked as IBM does know
that they leaked.