[ros-kernel] Copyright/IP issues and ReactOS

[Waldo Alvarez Cañizares]

Hi Vizzini:

> and 3.Another issue is if someone was to look at the leaked code and from
> there figure out what an undocumnented function does or what happens in an
> undocumented corner case or when wierd arguments are passed to a function
> or whatever (for example, all that work I did on windows, classes, window
> procedures etc, most of that counts as "undocumented behaviour"). Assuming
> that the info that was learned was not a Derived Work of MS code (it is
> possible to document what a piece of code does without that document being
> a derived work of the code), are there any other issues that would come up
> from using said documentation in ReactOS development?

This is a legal rat's nest, and at the moment, our policy is that you
must not look at the leaked Windows source code for any reason.  I plan
on reviewing these policies in a couple of months, but meanwhile, the
source is off-limits, period.

> No, I havent seen the leaked source code but given that its out there,
> someone who has will try and provide this kind of info to ReactOS and we
> need to have clear policies in place to make sure that we know how to deal
> with it (especially if, as is almost certain, its not specificly labeled as
> comming from the MS source code, so saying "anything that mentions the code
> is no-go" wont work)

ATM, I'm inclined to be very conservative.  If I have reason to believe
that the coder looked at the leaked code, I'll recommend it for removal
from CVS, or if it's a patch, I won't commit it.  If I believe that any
code is copied and pasted from anywhere at all that isn't public domain,
the same will apply, unless we have explicit license to use it (like
Wine).

If I don't have reason to doubt the origin of technical information,
I'll be happy to take it.  We can always use good information.

Is this clear enough?

 -Vizzini

Here are my questions:
 
How can you have a reason to beleive it came from windows sources if you can't look at them?
 
How can't you prevent MS paying someone to insert it in CVS if you don't see the sources?

How can you proof is not hard worked testing and hard worked analisis even if you look at them?
 
How can MS tell you?
 
This means if some behavior is not documented and someone somehow finds out how, we can't change it and have to leave it broken?
How can you make it compatible? 
How is Wine Legal (I do not see differences betwend user mode code and kernel mode code the same rule applies)?
How books like "Windows 95 System programming secrets" and "Nt Filesystem internals" or "Modern operating systems 2nd" are legal?
How sites like www.ntinsider.xxx www.sysinternals.xxx .... etc are legal?
 
How different is to look at the sources / looking at binaries while you debug?
The EULA says you must not reverse engineer Windows (disassemble/decompile it). Now when you debug with a microsoft debugger you can see at dissassembled binaries even if you do not want to. I think that tracing it gives you even more information than dissassembling it.
 
Can information be copyrighted?
 
How legal is Windows when it uses information  know how from *nix/MacOS?
 
How can MS not tell you that you copied and tweaked a little the sources even when you didn't? There are all sort of doing things everybody with some common sense will do it very similar, if to that you add you named lots of things exactly like in the DDK, SDK I have no doubts that lots of portions will be very similar.
 
Traps everywhere.
I think we should find the answers of this questions even  more than writting a single line of code.
In my opinion those sources didn't leaked probably where released. But we can't proof it. Yes, a cleaver move from MS. Very clever, I think we should be very very carefull even more that someone at Microsoft Is reading this very own e-mail for sure. I have enought evidence.
 
Best Regards
Waldo Alvarez.

_______________________________________________
Ros-kernel mailing list
Ros-kernel at reactos.com
http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-kernel

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 7637 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://reactos.com:8080/pipermail/ros-kernel/attachments/20040226/bf8b6fae/attachment.bin