[ros-kernel] Re: Tainted code in User32?
eek2121 at comcast.net
Tue Jun 1 01:06:32 CEST 2004
That which i said comes directly (well, it's not a quote, but it's the
gist of it) from a legal book all about IP right in front of me.
Stephen Hodges wrote:
> I don't think I agree with that. Patents generally are more broad than
> specific, and they usually refer to a method patent holders aren't
> required to give the nitty gritty of the method. If google's patent
> was specific, I'm sure we'd have mini-googles springing up already. A
> patent is more so an idea than a specific implementation, that's what
> they are there for.. To protect someone from profiting on someone
> else's idea. But I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft had patented
> Win32/NT kernel APIs. I'm saying that the APIs themselves are
> copyrighted. The header files which contain the data structures,
> function prototypes, macros, and so on are copyrighted material. As
> long as ReactOS supports these identical structures, it will be
> basically copying the SDK or DDK headers into the ROS codebase.
> Stephen Hodges
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Campbell <mailto:eek2121 at comcast.net>
> *To:* ReactOS Kernel List <mailto:ros-kernel at reactos.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 31, 2004 9:56 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ros-kernel] Re: Tainted code in User32?
> Just remember though,
> A patent is protection of a *SPECIFIC* implementation of an idea,
> not the actual idea itself. Therefore, ReactOS infringes on no
> patents, and copyright infringement (should not be anyways) isn't
> an issue, because none of the code was taken from Microsoft (that
> i am aware of).
> As far as the realities of things, by the time Microsoft starts
> taking us to court, the ReactOS Foundation should be completely
> set up and we should have a legal team in place to deal with such
> Stephen Hodges wrote:
>> The issue isn't over wether reverse engineering is legal or not
>> and what purposes. It's about the fact that there is so much
>> similarities and that there is so many duplicates. A reactOS DDK
>> that is too different from Microsoft's would imply it's not
>> compatible. If it was the same, that seems to be copyright
>> infringement. It's the whole nature of the SCO crusade against Linux.
>> If the situation were different, and say, the APIs were like
>> electrical sockets, and instead of copyright covering that, it's
>> a patent. APIs aren't physical per se, so it falls under
>> intellectual property. It's a doomed goal.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Steven Edwards <mailto:steven_ed4153 at yahoo.com>
>> *To:* ReactOS Kernel List <mailto:ros-kernel at reactos.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 31, 2004 2:55 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [ros-kernel] Re: Tainted code in User32?
>> --- Jason Filby <jasonfilby at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:jasonfilby at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> > I didn't realize that the issue being debated was whether
>> or not
>> > reverse engineering is legal for our purposes or not. Its
>> > best
>> > to avoid it - because even if some of us disagree on it
>> now, it could
>> This is what I proposed last week but most of our developers
>> do not
>> seem to want to adopt this stance. The 9th Circus court ruled
>> disambly of objects was legal and fell under reverse
>> engineering but I
>> dont not belive we should follow thier judgement as they are
>> the most
>> overturned court in the US and that interpretation of the law
>> could be
>> changed at any time.
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
>> Ros-kernel mailing list
>> Ros-kernel at reactos.com <mailto:Ros-kernel at reactos.com>
>>Ros-kernel mailing list
>>Ros-kernel at reactos.com
> Ros-kernel mailing list
> Ros-kernel at reactos.com
>Ros-kernel mailing list
>Ros-kernel at reactos.com
More information about the Ros-kernel