[ros-kernel] Re: Tainted code in User32?
aleksey at studiocerebral.com
Tue Jun 1 14:38:40 CEST 2004
I'd like to mention again, based on all this long discussion -- if you
'think' something - it doesn't mean it 'is' really so.
There is law, and there are lawyers, who read this law. Otherwise it is a
waste of time -- like Dmitriy did here for some time - arguing about
If everyone will 'suggest' something - we will hardly end up in some
Though suggestions, which are backed with a literature (like what Richard
said) - they have a value.
With the best regards,
From: ros-kernel-bounces at reactos.com [mailto:ros-kernel-bounces at reactos.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:07 AM
To: ReactOS Kernel List
Subject: Re: [ros-kernel] Re: Tainted code in User32?
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
More information about the Ros-kernel