181–190 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one of the authors of said book is also quite a prominent member of the ReactOS team.
Did he work for Microsoft though? If yes, I wonder what kind of interaction between him and Mark Russinovich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The infamous "cancer" analogy was referring to the copyleft-licensing, not the actual system per se . Saying ReactOS infringes 200+ Microsoft patents and threatening for lawsuits to developers and all users is a more effective FUD approach to me, and may even be factually true. The entire project of Linux kernel was running under this threat for 10+ years until ~2005 (?) when an agreement was established.
AFAIK Software patents aren't enforceable outside of the US+Japan though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s my personal opinion and it’s based on my lecture of ReactOS code at the time I downloaded it (circa when I wrote my reply on Quora). I think anyone who can read C code can reach similar conclusions just by eyeballing the code in ReactOS and the code from the leaked Research Kernel, that can be found for example on GitHub. As a matter fact, someone on this thread did just that and it did not take that person very…
>and it’s based on my lecture of ReactOS code at the time I downloaded it It would be interesting to see if this statement comes back to bite you in court if the opposite accusation is ever made. That Windows kernel developers have been stealing from GPL code :)
In all seriousness is this normal? I write and work on kernel drivers for the company I work for and have always gone out of my way to not view or interact with any code that remotely relates to the work I do (out side of what I coded). Our competitor even released their version of a block device snapshot driver and while I would be tempted to see how they did things I have avoided it every step of the way.
Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…
Why wouldn't you reply to ReactOS devs here pointing that what you are saying is clearly wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK Software patents aren't enforceable outside of the US+Japan though.
That would be enough to get an injunction and prohibit the software from being distributed in the US, which would deny a very important market for the developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe that is what Microsoft employees do while writing Windows Internals? I have serious trouble believing it. I'm not saying that it's not possible, just that it might not be the case there and these facts seem to confirm it.
Alex Ionescu wasn't a Microsoft employee, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did he work for Microsoft though? If yes, I wonder what kind of interaction between him and Mark Russinovich.
No, he did not. Mark Russinovich also started to work on Microsoft only recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment is from one dude in late 2017 - it probably doesn't mean shit. Like dude is talking about "there is absolutely no way on earth this was written from a clean sheet only from the available public documentation.", but that's not the bar for reverse engineering systems. It is legal (if you do it right anyways) to examine, use, and disassemble software in the process of reverse engineering.
What about EULA then? I know in some cases it is not enforceable, but I think it might apply in case of reverse engineering.
c. Restrictions. The device manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all rights (such as rights under intellectual property laws) not expressly granted in this agreement. For example, this license does not give you any right to, and you may not: (skipping a few) (vi) reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software, or attempt to do so, except and only to the extent that the foregoing restriction is (a) permitted by applicable law; (b) permitted by licensing terms governing the use of open-source components that may be included with the software; or (c) required to debug changes to any libraries licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License which are included with and linked to by the software; and
The EULA says you can reverse engineer to the extent that is legal in your jurisdiction.
Hello from ReactOS team! We don't use the leaked code from MS, We don't use Windows Research Kernel, We thank you for the PR campaign you have stared 'pro bono' for our project! ;D
Brushing this off as a free "PR campaign" only works if those NT programmers simply made everything up. That's possible, because we as the general public have no way of knowing. But it's hard to ignore that there are just two possible scenarios here, nothing in between.
Could you please clarify: If MS people say they do recognize verbatim code from NT in your source, are they lying? If they're not lying, what happened?