[ros-kernel] Re: Tainted code in User32?
theteofscuba at hotmail.com
Mon May 31 19:28:56 CEST 2004
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 clearly
> 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 that
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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ros-kernel