Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 10th Nov 2004 19:52 UTC, submitted by Steven Edwards
ReactOS Some have claimed to release a product called Ekush a Windows replacement Operating System. The problem is that it uses code from ReactOS, Wine, Qemu and Freetype without obeying the GPL or LGPL that ReactOS and Wine use as their license.
Order by: Score:
Not anymore...
by Rev.Tig on Wed 10th Nov 2004 19:57 UTC

According to that page :

This Hosting Account is Expired/Suspended

re: Not anymore
by David Pastern on Wed 10th Nov 2004 20:07 UTC

Most probably a Microsoft smoke screen. Typical thing that Microsoft would do, in order to try and get the GPL into court and try and invalidate it.

Dave W Pastern

It got slashdotted
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Nov 2004 20:08 UTC

Looks like someone posted it on slashdot this morning at 9:30 AM:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/10/1320231&tid=201&tid=190...

Re: Re: Not anymore
by Mike on Wed 10th Nov 2004 20:29 UTC

Typical thing that Microsoft would do

How is that, can you tell of other things MS did that are like this?

Come on!
by Rob on Wed 10th Nov 2004 20:52 UTC

Do you seriously think that Microsoft, as big as they are, would engage in something like faking products like this???

You have a huge tinfoil hat, my friend.

The whole story
by Filip on Wed 10th Nov 2004 21:57 UTC
v What's a Lincese?
by Shawn on Wed 10th Nov 2004 22:49 UTC
Are people really that stupid?
by Chewy509 on Wed 10th Nov 2004 22:56 UTC

Seriously, copying code from ReactOS (a well known WinNT clone), Wine, Qemu and Freetype, and trying to sell it is just plain stupid. The greater community isn't that stupid, and would spot it a mile away...

Than add to the fact that they bundle a M$ produced binary (fdc.sys) with mangled copyright strings, is justing asking to go down, and go down hard...

In a way, the ReactOS team should just get M$ lawyers to handle it (simply based on the repackaging of the M$ floppy driver). And if anything is left over, ask the FSF for help...

v "Lincese"? What is that?
by Brown on Wed 10th Nov 2004 23:08 UTC
v Re: What's a Lincese? | "Lincese"? What is that?
by Megol on Thu 11th Nov 2004 00:53 UTC
v @Megol
by Brown on Thu 11th Nov 2004 01:11 UTC
v Re: "Lincese"? What is that?
by PC on Thu 11th Nov 2004 03:03 UTC
v Re: "Lincese"? What is that?
by BrownSux on Thu 11th Nov 2004 03:20 UTC
v ...
by helf on Thu 11th Nov 2004 03:48 UTC
v Re: "Lincese"? What is that?
by Sid on Thu 11th Nov 2004 03:49 UTC
Getting back on topic,
by Wesley Parish on Thu 11th Nov 2004 07:06 UTC

it's simple theft. The licenses of the various software packages are simple and easy to follow; their terms aren't onerous; and the people developing the various packages are generous with their time and energy.

It's ingratitude, it's misappropriation, and it deserves to be smacked down as hard as any normal "software piracy".

GPL...
by Marco Radossevich on Thu 11th Nov 2004 08:32 UTC

Well... they can grab *any* code they want, but needs to stay under the GPL, so they jest have to publish the source code.

Do you remember the XviD vs. Sigma Designs ? Well, check out the download page:

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/products/RMP4_download.htm

Perfectly legal !

So, if they publish the code, they can do it.

HaPpY CoDiNg !

Re: GPL
by w3seek on Thu 11th Nov 2004 10:34 UTC

1. They removed all copyright notices, which is illegal and has nothing to do with the license the source code/binaries of ReactOS and wine are published under. The creators still own copyright, no matter which license unless we explicitly publish the code/binaries as public domain.
2. If they published the sources it would've been legal, as long as they don't change/fake copyright.

uhm...
by Marco Radossevich on Thu 11th Nov 2004 12:23 UTC

AFAIK they can remove any comments in the code 'cause is a part of the code itself (so it can be modified).
They can't change/remove the GPL license file and they must publish the sources.

Any different opinion ?

GPL == license, copyright != GPL != license
by w3seek on Thu 11th Nov 2004 13:01 UTC

No, they're not allowed to fake or remove copyright information, neither in binaries nor in sources. Again, copyright is still valid, which means the authors have all rights on the source and are entitled to change license or disclose their work at any time (of course all contributors are required to agree).

The GPL is on top of copyright law (which is generally applicable unless work has been published as public domain explicitly) and just gives everyone certain rights what to do with the code or binaries

RE: GPL vs. copyright
by Morin on Thu 11th Nov 2004 18:22 UTC

"The GPL is on top of copyright law (which is generally applicable unless work has been published as public domain explicitly) and just gives everyone certain rights what to do with the code or binaries"

Yes, but copying a version without including the GPL is not among the rights granted by the GPL, so the GPL just doesn't cover that case. Which brings copyright back into game, which doesn't give you any rights to copy anything --> copyright violation.