osfree.org

#271 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 7:58 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


> Then look at the code segment below.
> Have I infringed on your copyright ??

Yes you have, just comming up with different var/function
names forgetting a ; here and there and writing in an ugly
codestyle won't cut the cake.

What you could have done is, loop over all rects
of the section and create the surrounding rect, and in
the end clip that to the rect of the window.

My sample might have been a bit to simple & short,
but think about OpenWatcom.
It is in leagal processing of the source code for 2 years.
Just to make sure there is no copyright infringtion when
opend to the public.

#272 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 9:09 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 16:58:48 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:

>> Then look at the code segment below.
>> Have I infringed on your copyright ??
>
>Yes you have, just comming up with different var/function
>names forgetting a ; here and there and writing in an ugly
>codestyle won't cut the cake.
>
I not sure if such a short code can be copyrighted(*) at
all but I can agree its a ugly hack;-)

(*) Can someone that really knows (the law) tell me, can
sourcecode by copyrighted in the EU ??

>What you could have done is, loop over all rects
>of the section and create the surrounding rect, and in
>the end clip that to the rect of the window.
>
Seriously, I never even gave a though of what the
code does




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

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

#273 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 9:47 pm
Subject: Re: My perspective michalnec
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:

>Michal, I believe that your response is factually incorrect, pleasant as
>it is.
>
Why is it incorrect? Please correct me.


Michal

#274 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My perspective michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 16:58:48 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:

>> Then look at the code segment below.
>> Have I infringed on your copyright ??
>
>Yes you have, just comming up with different var/function
>names forgetting a ; here and there and writing in an ugly
>codestyle won't cut the cake.
>
Markus, did you realize that you may have infringed on
someone else's copyright? What if someone wrote a short
function like this before? Did you make sure to check
all prior art? What if they'll sue you?

Don't you see how absurd this is?

>My sample might have been a bit to simple & short,
>but think about OpenWatcom.
>It is in leagal processing of the source code for 2 years.
>Just to make sure there is no copyright infringtion when
>opend to the public.
>
No, it's in the hands of lawyers because basically no one
(no lawyer) is working on it much, not because it's so hard
to identify the code Sybase owns and the code it doesn't.
In fact it took one person (a Sybase programmer) a week or
so to go over all the source files.


Michal

#275 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:25:00 -0800 (PST), Lynn H. Maxson wrote:
>
>Because the manufacturing process is one of specification,
>analysis, design, construction, and testing as is the software
>development process. The parallelism has never been lost on
>software engineers. Both create assemblies from other assemblies
>and raw material.
>
Would you try to apply manufacturing processes to music, movies,
books?

>Now if you follow this, it means that every unique source
>statement is given a context-based name. It means that the raw
>material, the source statements, have names as do assemblies. You
>do not have to store the assemblies as fully expanded source code,
>but only as a sequence of names, each of which may name another
>assembly or raw material.
>
OK, I follow you so far. I also think storing statements in
a database is pointless.

>What you have to grasp here is that this reusability is automatic,
>a builtin feature of the software itself. So no matter how many
>different times different people write the same source statement
>in their source code, the software gives that source statement a
>context-based name with the actual source statement existing only
>once in the source database regardless of number of uses.
>
And what is the point?

BTW Have you ever used tools like Sourcelink? Visual SlickEdit?

>So, yes, I do believe that it is possible to manufacture software
>from reusable components. You simply have to recognize that every
>source statement is reusable. If you do, then you store,
>retrieve, and maintain it as such. We do not do that currently in
>any of our tools.
>
Maybe because it's not useful? Or not possible? Have you ever
considered the possibility that what you're saying might be
complete nonsense?

Maybe it's not. Maybe the system you're proposing is doable
(although then I don't see why somebody isn't using it). What
I'm certain of is that I don't believe in silver bullets. You
seem to think that it is somehow possible to automate writing
of software. I don't. You know, many people sincerely believed
in great many completely flawed ideas (communism comes to mind).
That didn't make the ideas work though.


Michal

#276 From: Jason Filby <jasonfilby@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 12:48 am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 9 jasonfilby
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


--- Oliver Stein <ostein@...> wrote:
>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?

Wrong. Generally reactos.com news only features major events, such as
a new kernel release (0019 will be in a few days time). If you think
this project isn't active, I challenge you to subscribe to the kernel
mailing list -- even if its just for a few days.

I hope to get reactos.org up sometime next month. This will be for
developers and feature more regular news (such as the latest CVS
commits).

- Jason







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

#277 From: Jason Filby <jasonfilby@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 1:04 am
Subject: Re: NewOS jasonfilby
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


>-- JMA <mail@...> 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.

Well originally OS/2 and NT were the same thing -- jointly developed
by IBM and MS. Then MS broke off and went their own way, at least,
that's the story I read. Since NT supports subsystems on the kernel
by design, an OS/2 subsystem is an easy addition. In fact, NT was
once able to run some OS/2 apps (16 bit, I think) while OS/2 was able
to run NT apps (but MS changed the API faster than what IBM could
keep up).

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

See above.

>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.

Uses lots of Linux code?? Some of the developers are writing a POSIX
subsystem to run Linux code... but the kernel is designed the same
way as NT. I don't really see where we use Linux code.

>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

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. Where did you
hear this about us using Linux code? Our IO manager, memory manager,
our multitasking is all based on NT. Linux is monolithic, ReactOS
uses a layered microkernel (as does NT).

Perhaps the confusion is because of the WINE project? WINE is a
project to run Windows apps on Linux. We are trying to work with WINE
to reduce duplicate effort. But all of this is in the win32 subsystem
and has nothing to do with the kernel. The parts we take are win32
anyway, not Linux code.

>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.

Linux is a monolith kernel -- that is the old design. NT (and
ReactOS) use a layered microkernel design. Linux may have lots of
drivers, but I think NT has much, much more. We aim for ReactOS to be
able to use NT drivers. We're getting closer, especially since our
registry is growing more and more complete.

- Jason







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

#278 From: "klaus_h_fuchs" <kfuchs@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 1:57 am
Subject: IBM OS/2 Open Source (was: Digest Number 9) klaus_h_fuchs
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


--- In osFree@y..., "Oliver Stein" <ostein@i...> wrote:
> >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

Hello Oliver,

how about the OS/2 PPC Sourcecode.. is it possible for IBM to
Opensource that Code with the GPL?

Klaus

#279 From: "klaus_h_fuchs" <kfuchs@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 2:22 am
Subject: The Law (was: My perspective) klaus_h_fuchs
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:

>(*) Can someone that really knows (the law) tell me, can
>sourcecode by copyrighted in the EU ??==

how about reading Ulrich M�ller's (djmutex) mail?

He really KNOWS what he's talking about!

And to some other "hobby lawyers" please read that mail too...
..analogies are a nice thing if you have knowledge and want to tell
someone a klomplex thing in an easy way.
But analogies don't necessarily fit if you're an expert in one thing
and want to become an expert in another subject!

Klaus

#280 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Sun Feb 24, 2002 3:26 am
Subject: Re: IBM OS/2 Open Source (was: Digest Number 9) michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:57:31 -0000, klaus_h_fuchs wrote:

>> 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
>
>how about the OS/2 PPC Sourcecode.. is it possible for IBM to
>Opensource that Code with the GPL?
>
Why GPL?

Anyway I'm sure it is possible. I'm equally sure IBM doesn't
want to do it.

I also do not believe that IBM cannot opensource IBM OS/2 or
at least large parts of it. That just doesn't make sense.
Of course I haven't seen the "divorce papers" signed by IBM
and Microsoft, but I don't think those who say "IBM can't do
it" have either.

I do know for a fact that one of the primary developers of
OS/2 2.0 said something to the effect that "sure, IBM can
do whatever they want to do with the sources, they're just
too spineless".


Michal