Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: ReactOS 0.3.15 Begins Supporting USB Mice

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Yes, it could be it, likewise one isn't not going to expect anything of quality in this case, and they are very dependent and vulnerable from ms, which is known to take very aggressive and shameless decisions.

    Sadly, I can't name anyone, one is going to do own research; but likewise I am not limiting your view on subject to only my vision.
    I don't see how they're dependent or vulnerable; if it's copyright, I don't think there's a problem. They aren't copying any of MS's resources (theme files, dlls, etc.) and using them in their project. That leaves TradeMark and Patent; they aren't using any of Microsoft's TMs (or even anything that resembles them), as far as I've seen, so that's no problem. If it's patents, they're just as vulnerable as Linux or OS X in that regard. I doubt MS will sue them because they have icons on a desktop, or because they use a certain mechanism to communicate between processes and services. If they do, then the ReactOS devs can just change that mechanism so that it no longer infringes on their patent.

    So, what are they so vulnerable from again? I haven't even heard MS mention ReactOS in a long time (if at all, my memory fails me).

    As far as whether anyone and who was hired at Microsoft, your word is as good as mine until either of us gets some evidence. I'm not going to argue the point.

    Edit: Paradox Uncreated, maybe you should go to [H]ardForum, where they care (maybe a little too much) about performance, and see if their reaction is any different. Call it a social studies experiment, if you will; the results may surprise you.
    Last edited by Nobu; 06-02-2013 at 04:37 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    I don't see how they're dependent or vulnerable; if it's copyright, I don't think there's a problem. They aren't copying any of MS's resources (theme files, dlls, etc.) and using them in their project. That leaves TradeMark and Patent; they aren't using any of Microsoft's TMs (or even anything that resembles them), as far as I've seen, so that's no problem. If it's patents, they're just as vulnerable as Linux or OS X in that regard. I doubt MS will sue them because they have icons on a desktop, or because they use a certain mechanism to communicate between processes and services. If they do, then the ReactOS devs can just change that mechanism so that it no longer infringes on their patent.
    Well, changing the way processes communicate actually might break compatibility, and that's the main target of ReactOS. If you break it, you break its reason to exist.

    As far as whether anyone and who was hired at Microsoft, your word is as good as mine until either of us gets some evidence. I'm not going to argue the point.
    IIRC, Alexey Bragin is a Windows' drivers consultor, which if I understand correctly means he does work coding drivers for 3rd parties that will run on Windows. And he is the project leader, so it might benefit him reputation-wise. But contrary to an individual who tries to work directly for MS, he will not have any loss out of real ReactOS' success (MS wouldn't want to hire someone who actually tries to make them lose clients, but just someone who knows how to work with their infrastructure).

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    Well, changing the way processes communicate actually might break compatibility, and that's the main target of ReactOS. If you break it, you break its reason to exist.
    As long as the API/ABI remains the same, it shouldn't matter what the actual mechanism is. For instance, as long as the app thinks it's communicating with bits and bytes, you could have messages carried by pigeons and they won't care...for the most part, anyway. I guess there could be some exceptions.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    As long as the API/ABI remains the same, it shouldn't matter what the actual mechanism is. For instance, as long as the app thinks it's communicating with bits and bytes, you could have messages carried by pigeons and they won't care...for the most part, anyway. I guess there could be some exceptions.
    Of course, but that limits you on how many changes you can make on it. I don't really know how patents work, though, so I can not know if they can actually patent something crucial enough to make such huge change necessary.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    BSD is very obscure when seen from GPL hill as well, but at least only GPL warrants true freedom for software.
    Actually the GPL just limits you to use their variety of copyleft while removing the ability to use other types of copyleft licenses that may be more suited to branches of your project like the MPLv2 or CDDL. A license which permitted you to publish under any license which preserved the four freedoms would be in fact an additional freedom in itself.

    And the only reason Lindows was sued was the name which was claimed to be infringing Windows' trademark name, a claim that was never proved since the case was settled when Microsoft bought the rights to the name Lindows. That Linux distro became Linspire where it continued to strongly resemble Windows until development halted.

    So as long as you don't call the application launcher a 'start menu' or use any trademarked, patented or copyrighted material, you can make it look as much like Windows as you like with the added option of shipping with Wine if you like.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    Actually the GPL just limits you to use their variety of copyleft while removing the ability to use other types of copyleft licenses that may be more suited to branches of your project like the MPLv2 or CDDL. A license which permitted you to publish under any license which preserved the four freedoms would be in fact an additional freedom in itself.
    I have studied CDDL extensively and its not copyleft, its a BSD because it allows both dynamic and static linking to resulting executable; as well as includes very cloudly definition of intellectual property and patent revocation clause.

    If one really respects freedom, one should limit own freedom to strip this exact freedom, which is what GPL does and CDDL & BSD do not.
    This distinguishes anarchy from freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    And the only reason Lindows was sued was the name which was claimed to be infringing Windows' trademark name, a claim that was never proved since the case was settled when Microsoft bought the rights to the name Lindows. That Linux distro became Linspire where it continued to strongly resemble Windows until development halted.

    So as long as you don't call the application launcher a 'start menu' or use any trademarked, patented or copyrighted material, you can make it look as much like Windows as you like with the added option of shipping with Wine if you like.
    You didn't prove me wrong, but I appreciate details you posted though, although I know every one of them. Lindows was just to pull off the money, until they succeeded, settled and renamed. Because of lack of point beyond, they halted. But I don't know if a parasite that attacks a predator is a good parasite or a bad parasite.. I am not good at entomology.

    Like cases with Samsung have shown, if UI or looks are copied, and they are patentable, one is under risk. Not to mention that its a bad behaviour to do that. So.. how about sticking with the good guys that have no problem with that, instead of spending time on trying to copy the bad guys?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    Actually the GPL just limits you to use their variety of copyleft while removing the ability to use other types of copyleft licenses that may be more suited to branches of your project like the MPLv2 or CDDL. A license which permitted you to publish under any license which preserved the four freedoms would be in fact an additional freedom in itself.
    And would open all the loopholes ever imagined. The "preserves 4 freedoms" notation would be incredibly vague, anyone could use it as a pretext to use nearly any other license.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    If one really respects freedom, one should limit own freedom to strip this exact freedom, which is what GPL does and CDDL & BSD do not.
    This distinguishes anarchy from freedom.
    That is so arbitrary... Who do you think you are to tell me what is and what is not freedom?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I have studied CDDL extensively and its not copyleft, its a BSD because it allows both dynamic and static linking to resulting executable; as well as includes very cloudly definition of intellectual property and patent revocation clause.

    If one really respects freedom, one should limit own freedom to strip this exact freedom, which is what GPL does and CDDL & BSD do not.
    This distinguishes anarchy from freedom.
    You're quite wrong stating CDDL is a BSD license, it's still a variety of copyleft. If you take BSD code, add it to a greater work under CDDL, the whole package is then under the CDDL. It also allows more flexibility with linking, as you said, than the LGPL does.
    And you also avoided discussing the MPLv2 which is also interesting.

    And your response is use *GPL because 'it's better'?
    Cute.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    And would open all the loopholes ever imagined. The "preserves 4 freedoms" notation would be incredibly vague, anyone could use it as a pretext to use nearly any other license.
    I gather that, I was trying to make a point. I'm no lawyer but someone could make a framework that you could use that would preserve compatibility across several license types without sacrificing copyleft.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •