Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Nov 2006 20:49 UTC, submitted by frik85
ReactOS 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 main DirectX implementation developer Magnus Olsen.
Thread beginning with comment 187232
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Reverse Engineering
by fireball on Fri 1st Dec 2006 21:32 UTC
Member since:

This message was a provocation, due to a personal conflict between one developer and another. And when that developer decided to quit, he wanted to "close the door very loudly" (this is typical for FOSS projects, unfortunately).

We decided to use this occasion and in order to be sure all our code is valid, an audit is being conducted by our own developers, and 3rd party code auditing (auditing of the whole codebase + any coming patches) will be setup when ReactOS switches to beta state.

Further details (who will conduct 3rd party audit, when and how) will be published when possible in form of news.

I kindly ask to not react to these continuos comments of, maybe, one person under different nicks spamming ReactOS news entries with these lies.


Reply Score: 4

RE: Reverse Engineering
by predictor on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 10:16 in reply to "Reverse Engineering"
predictor Member since:

IANAL, but I don't think any amount of auditing helps here. Even if the code is free from Microsoft code, the code may have been written using the illegally obtained code. And what to audit against? The MS code? But you can't possibly have that, legally(?)

I'm currently more than dubious about this project...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Reverse Engineering
by fireball on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 13:58 in reply to "RE: Reverse Engineering"
fireball Member since:

predictor - the goal of our audit is to establish origins of the code - find authors, documentation, GPL-compatible code (on which ours is based), and of course to find errors in the code, and fix what is wrong (errors, code with unclean/unknown origins, etc).

To summarise:
1) Giving credits to those who did the work (people, orgs, etc)
2) Finding errors
3) Finding code which has no legal documentation sources behind it - such code must be either just deleted, or (if it is in a critical place), the following procedure applies: one person creates a thorough code-less documentation from the existing code, and sends it to another person (who have never seen that code), and he implements it (so-called clean implementation, tested in court - works).

Edited 2006-12-02 14:00

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Reverse Engineering
by 2th_noname on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 14:17 in reply to "Reverse Engineering"
2th_noname Member since:

...spamming ReactOS news entries with these lies.

Aleksey, what is a lie? Was the 'Open Letter' a lie? It was written by a ReactOS developer and published to the list by another one. It was deleted from the list archive. All other mails, which refer to this mail were also deleted. If the 'Open letter' or its contents was a lie, why do I not find such statements in the following mails? I found another mail
which repeats some things from the 'Open Letter':
We know of four developers who have had access to leaked sources...

The 'Open Letter' was not intended for the public, but it gives an interesting view, how ReactOS is developed.

It is time, to give clarification about this letter and its contents.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Reverse Engineering
by predictor on Sat 2nd Dec 2006 15:47 in reply to "RE: Reverse Engineering"
predictor Member since:

Infringments or not...

I guess 2-3 years from now, most folks use Vista client/Longhorn server and doesn't care about obscure XP/2003 clones anyways (since noone will have the interest), thus no reasons for MS to take action.

Or does ReactOS plan to play catchup as new Windows versions arrive?

Reply Parent Score: 1