Menu
▾
▴
reactos-kernel
|
From: Robert K. <ro...@ko...> - 2002-05-26 21:09:07
|
Hi, I followex Yuri's suggestion and had a look at emx. And in deed, there is an os2.h-File that contains the whole BaseAPI oa2emx.h One can optain the package there: http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d/emxdev1.zip The readme talks about GNU license and the os2-header has also no (C). But it is nearly sure that it was copy'n'pasted. Bevore I start using it, give your comment. And how and where will the os2ss-module continue, since it is separated? |
|
From: Jason F. <jas...@ya...> - 2002-05-27 08:15:59
|
This actually opens a wider discussion about header files and copyright in general. The only choice we really have is to go ahead and use the header file information. Copy and paste doesn't make a difference - since any kind of transformation still violates copyright - even if you retype everything, it's still transformation. We will just have to, if the time comes, defend our right to use header file information for the sake of compatibility. Here's a paper related to this point of view: http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_copyright_law.html My opinion at least (and the author of the paper). - Jason --- "Robert K." <ro...@ko...> wrote: > Hi, I followex Yuri's suggestion and had a look at emx. > And in deed, there is an os2.h-File that contains the whole BaseAPI > oa2emx.h > One can optain the package there: > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d/emxdev1.zip > > The readme talks about GNU license and the os2-header has also no > (C). > But it is nearly sure that it was copy'n'pasted. > > Bevore I start using it, give your comment. > And how and where will the os2ss-module continue, since it is > separated? > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- > http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: Casper H. <ch...@us...> - 2002-05-27 11:49:07
|
man, 2002-05-27 kl. 10:15 skrev Jason Filby: > This actually opens a wider discussion about header files and > copyright in general. The only choice we really have is to go ahead > and use the header file information. Copy and paste doesn't make a > difference - since any kind of transformation still violates > copyright - even if you retype everything, it's still transformation. > We will just have to, if the time comes, defend our right to use > header file information for the sake of compatibility. Here's a paper > related to this point of view: > > http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_copyright_law.html > > My opinion at least (and the author of the paper). > > - Jason I hope that last sentence is correct; that header files are not completely copyrightable. Next month, I will be contributing a free Windows XP DDK to MinGW which is mostly copy/pasted from the Windows DDK documentation. Unfortunatly, some needed structures are not documented in the Windows DDK documentation. There are three cases: 1) The structures are not mentioned in the Windows DDK documentation, only in the header files. I have left most of these out since they are usually not important. 2) The structures are mentioned in the Windows DDK documentation, but only referenced by name from other structures. I have included these, copy/pasted them from the header files. 3) Microsoft seems to have a policy that constants are only mentioned by name in the Windows DDK documentation, and they are defined in the header files, so I have copy/pasted them from there. The Windows DDK documentation explicitly states that you may not copy any information in it without permission, but they will probably just state this in order to keep us from trying. - Casper |
|
From: Robert K. <ro...@ko...> - 2002-05-27 14:09:47
|
I think there is a passus that restricts the use of the files to only _MS_-windows developement Since this header is exchangeable and its use is not forbidden (until now), I'll use it for now. Casper Hornstrup schrieb: > man, 2002-05-27 kl. 10:15 skrev Jason Filby: > > This actually opens a wider discussion about header files and > > copyright in general. The only choice we really have is to go ahead > > and use the header file information. Copy and paste doesn't make a > > difference - since any kind of transformation still violates > > copyright - even if you retype everything, it's still transformation. > > We will just have to, if the time comes, defend our right to use > > header file information for the sake of compatibility. Here's a paper > > related to this point of view: > > > > http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Open_source_copyright_law.html > > > > My opinion at least (and the author of the paper). > > > > - Jason > > I hope that last sentence is correct; that header files are not > completely copyrightable. Next month, I will be contributing a free > Windows XP DDK to MinGW which is mostly copy/pasted from the Windows DDK > documentation. Unfortunatly, some needed structures are not documented > in the Windows DDK documentation. There are three cases: 1) The > structures are not mentioned in the Windows DDK documentation, only in > the header files. I have left most of these out since they are usually > not important. 2) The structures are mentioned in the Windows DDK > documentation, but only referenced by name from other structures. I have > included these, copy/pasted them from the header files. 3) Microsoft > seems to have a policy that constants are only mentioned by name in the > Windows DDK documentation, and they are defined in the header files, so > I have copy/pasted them from there. > The Windows DDK documentation explicitly states that you may not copy > any information in it without permission, but they will probably just > state this in order to keep us from trying. > > - Casper > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel |
|
From: Diego I. <ias...@ac...> - 2002-05-29 16:59:03
|
Hello list
The licenses legal state were discussed in some other sites/forums. From what
I get copyright are not covered the same way all over the world. For example
see 128 bits encryption status: legal in some countries and illegal in
others. Here is Israel ,if I am not mistaking, unassemble and reverse
engineering in software is not illegal. Licenses are covered by local laws of
each country. (where is ros located? us? if not we could move it to another
place).
I want to remind you all the debate about the ms eula, which says that you can
run that program (ms-word , ie) on any ms operating system, and there for you
may not run it under (for example) linux using wine, or lindows.
This eula is not legal, since they cant force you to run the program how under
a specific os, nor resctirct you to the use of the program ("it is unlegal
to run ms-word in win95, please upgrade to winxp or else", or "no you cannot
compile an os system core in vc6, nor a browser"). And if they will sue, it
will never stand in course. (another dabate could be the no warranty for non
free programs, but lets keep it another thread)
Header files are not code but definition of standard values and declaration of
function names and structures. These structs could be written from the
definitions: foo() needs a struct sized n bytes, the first 4 are a
signature/magic number equal to X, the next 2 the time and etc. These
definition do not implict of anything that the program does. That is why
header are most times not changed while the binary implementation that uses
them do change. That is where the real secrets are.
what i really want to say is best sad in arabic "yalla"! (which can be
translated as lets go). they cant sue, and they don't have someone to sue.
On Monday 27 May 2002 17:10, Robert K. wrote:
> I think there is a passus that restricts the use of the files to only
> _MS_-windows developement
>
> Since this header is exchangeable and its use is not forbidden (until now),
> I'll use it for now.
>
btw: if anyone replies in this list please delete the sourge force signatures
from the original post, I will get those lines anyway, and it annoys me to
d/l a lot of unusable bytes.
- diego
--
Today, THREE WINOS from DETROIT sold me a framed photo of TAB HUNTER
before his MAKEOVER!
|
|
From: Robert K. <ro...@ko...> - 2002-05-29 18:35:26
|
> > > The licenses legal state were discussed in some other sites/forums. From what > I get copyright are not covered the same way all over the world. For example > see 128 bits encryption status: legal in some countries and illegal in > others. Here is Israel ,if I am not mistaking, unassemble and reverse > engineering in software is not illegal. Licenses are covered by local laws of > each country. (where is ros located? us? if not we could move it to another > place). There are in fact countrys that have no copy right. Especially in the near east. Some arabian countrys. And I think Taiwan. This is also what I suggested. Locate the foundation in souch a country, where one can buy DatacenterServer for 4 US$. |
|
From: Frank D. E. Jr. <fd...@ya...> - 2002-05-31 16:29:45
|
Uh... In a country with no copyright laws, the GPL would have no affect, as it itself requires the material being protected to be copyrighted. It is a copyright license. In addition, would location in such a country not render the foundation useless when trying to defend developers in the U.S., or some other country where copyright laws exist? Because of this, placing the foundation in a country like that would eliminate the protection offered by the GPL to the project, and anyone could take the system and copyright it in some other country or something, turning ROS into an essentially closed-source system there, could they not? --- "Robert K." <ro...@ko...> wrote: > There are in fact countrys that have no copy right. Especially in the > near east. > Some arabian countrys. And I think Taiwan. > This is also what I suggested. Locate the foundation in souch a > country, where one > can buy DatacenterServer for 4 US$. ===== ======= Frank D. Engel, Jr. Please note my new address: fd...@ya... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: KJK::Hyperion <no...@li...> - 2002-05-27 23:29:48
|
At 13.43 27/05/2002, you wrote:
>3) Microsoft seems to have a policy that constants are only mentioned by
>name in the Windows DDK documentation, and they are defined in the header
>files, so I have copy/pasted them from there.
can they stop you from writing something like:
#define printconst(__x__) printf("%s = %d\n", #__x__, (__x__))
printconst(UNDOCUMENTED_CONSTANT_1);
printconst(UNDOCUMENTED_CONSTANT_2);
/* etc. */
|
|
From: Jason F. <jas...@ya...> - 2002-05-28 06:44:30
|
I mailed Scott Christley, the guy who wrote windows.h, and it turns
out he did something similar. But when conferring with lawyers, they
agreed that it is still transformation. You have to get that
information from somewhere, so I figure any way you do it will amount
to transformation. Scott proposed we do a clean room
implementation... but how do you do that with header files?
- Jason
--- "KJK::Hyperion" <no...@li...> wrote:
> At 13.43 27/05/2002, you wrote:
> >3) Microsoft seems to have a policy that constants are only
> mentioned by
> >name in the Windows DDK documentation, and they are defined in the
> header
> >files, so I have copy/pasted them from there.
>
> can they stop you from writing something like:
>
> #define printconst(__x__) printf("%s = %d\n", #__x__, (__x__))
>
> printconst(UNDOCUMENTED_CONSTANT_1);
> printconst(UNDOCUMENTED_CONSTANT_2);
>
> /* etc. */
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
> August 25-28 in Las Vegas --
> http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
>
> _______________________________________________
> reactos-kernel mailing list
> rea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
|
|
From: Robert C. <rob...@it...> - 2002-05-28 07:00:55
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: rea...@li... > [mailto:rea...@li...] On Behalf > Of Jason Filby > > Scott proposed we do a clean room > implementation... but how do you do that with header files? Same way as anything else. The person in the 'dirty room' reads *everything* that they can without entering NDA's. They also document everything that can be documented via reverse engineering. They then produce a formal specification from that. i.e. "image helper functions are to be defined in a C and C++ parseable header file called imagehlp.h. The following structures must be defined foo, bar and aleph. foo must contain exactly 5 members, with the following symbolic names: a,b and c. a must be represented by an unsigned 16 bit small-endian integral value... The following symbols must be defined: beta, gamma and delta. beta must evaluate to the integral value 16. gamma must evaluate to the integral value 45. " And so on. Someone in the 'clean room' then reads the formal spec and creates a set of headers. If the dirty room documenter did their job well, those headers will interoperate for both compilation and binary use immediately. If they didn't.... then you tell the dirty roomer that they got something wrong, and they revise the documentation. What happens is that the clean room person is deprived of the implementation tricks that made the headers compact/maintable etc, whilst still getting the interoperation information legitimatly. Rob |
