ReactOS, the open source implementation of a Windows XP/2003 compatible operating system, just published a new interview in their series of interviews with ReactOS developers. Today's interview features the most active kernel developer Alex Ionescu.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-27
Well, no, it clearly states TinyKRNL DOES use the BSD license. At this time (22 nov 18:30 GMT) it says "Because our components are linked with static libraries from the DDK as well as because some of our driver components are based on Microsoft Distributable Code, whose license prohibits usage of an Excluded License (such as the GPL or LGPL), these TinyKRNL components are licensed under the BSD license.".
You really can't read can you? "some of our driver components." "these TinyKRNL components". Yes, DDK samples are licensed BSD because this is 100% ALLOWED BY THE DDK EULA. Companies all over the WORLD are using samples for their commercial products even. ATI, NVDIA, VMWare, Maxtor, etc. Only the WDK license changed this but we don't use WDK samples.
The rest of the paragraph you quoted says:
"[...]This restriction has led to the creation of the TinyKRNL Shared Source License, which is available in the root folder of the SVN server. Always check the source file to verify which license it belongs to."
Thank you for spreading FUD!
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Member since:2006-04-24
> Thank you for spreading FUD!
Its not FUD. The legality of using the DDK drivers in a non-windows project has always been in question. The DDK EULA seems to make the usage quite clear which did not allow for development for non-windows systems.
In any case, the reason why the former ReactOS developers and Wine project members are not happy with the ReactOS project it because the project demographics have changed. The old ReactOS crew wanted a truely clean room, independent implementation. The current group of developers have no objection to not operating in a clean-room. These are different standards which has lead to animosity. It makes the older developers in the Wine camp feel like all of their work could be for nothing as at some point in the future under US copyright law it could be regarded a derived work.
The question about rather the clean-room standard Wine, Samba and other projects apply is really ethically necessary is a debate worth having, however your not going to change what has been an accepted standard in FreeSoftware development.
Steven Edwards
Former ReactOS Project Leader and Wine Developer
Member since:2005-07-07
Hmmm, seems your position changed from "TinyKRNL does not use the BSD license, as the FAQ page clearly states" to "some of our driver components use the BSD license". The way I read the FAQ page was: our components ... these components which would include all components.
But you're only responding to minor points, I really couldn't care less about TinyKRNL (yeah, I know, my own fault that I brought it up). The important points as far as I'm concerned are:
a) did you write the fast entry call from scratch, without referencing disassembled Windows code?
b) if that code wasn't written independently, is it still present in the current (HEAD) ReactOS tree?
Member since:
2005-07-07
There is no doubt that GvG has a lot of trouble reading English
Well, English isn't my native language, that's for sure.
Secondly, the fast entry call is already written in assembly
Yeah, I messed up there. In the case of the fast entry call you copied the disassembled code to asm instead of converting it to C. Minor mistake on my part, still a huge mistake on your part. Or are you now claiming the ReactOS fast entry code was written independently by you? Just a fair warning, I still have an email around where you admit to copying the code from Windows.
Merging HAL and Kernel code from ReactOS to TinyKRNL is appropriate use of the GPL, because that code will remain GPL licensed.
Finally, TinyKRNL does not use the BSD license, as the FAQ page clearly states.
Well, no, it clearly states TinyKRNL DOES use the BSD license. At this time (22 nov 18:30 GMT) it says "Because our components are linked with static libraries from the DDK as well as because some of our driver components are based on Microsoft Distributable Code, whose license prohibits usage of an Excluded License (such as the GPL or LGPL), these TinyKRNL components are licensed under the BSD license.".
I have no reason to doubt that the license in the svn tree is different if you say so, but I never made claims about the license in the svn tree, only about the license mentioned on the FAQ.