Hi Eric,
I know this has been discussed before, but should we not just bite the bullet
and replace this driver with the Microsoft driver.
The MS_LPL license allows it to be used in reactos, and it would certainly get
rid of any unknowns and give us a reliable filesystem to work from.
http://co
Hi Ged,
Are you sure that we can use software released under the MS-LPL? It has a
rather weird
limitation in section 4, which says that you can only use it on a "Microsoft
Windows operating system product".
Since ReactOS is not Windows, that would mean we can't use it.
Please correct me if I'm w
The exact words of the license, as seen at
http://www.ohloh.net/licenses/mslpl (I couldn't find a better link for
it), are:
"4. (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) &
2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
that run on a Microsoft Windows oper
Oh I should have clicked the link, I just noticed that code uses
MS-LPL 1.1, which is worded differently.
The new wording is:
"(F) Platform Limitation - The licenses granted in sections 2(A) and
2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
that run directly on a Microsoft
Fastfat is located inside its own binary, so this is considered "mere
aggregation", and
that is not the problem. (See
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation).
The problem is that you don't even have a license to use it or distribute it,
unless it's
on Microsoft Windows.
Then a
I do not agree on the "unless it's on Microsoft Windows" part. The
license grants apply if it is "created to run directly" on windows,
which I understand as "it can run anywhere else, also, just as long as
it runs in windows without an intermediary".
On 29 November 2013 17:51, Alexander Andrejevic
I suppose it depends on how you interpret it.
To me, "...extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
run
on a Microsoft Windows operating system product" sounds like the program must
run
on Windows exclusively. It's not "... that you create to run ...", but "...
that you
Hi all,
Let's the experts do.
I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to promote
and defend FOSS). They can answer about licensing issues (they propose
it through their contact form).
I'll keep you informed with their answers, highlights, and so on.
Regards,
On 11/29/2013
...@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] De la
part de Pierre Schweitzer
Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
À : ros-dev@reactos.org
Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
Hi all,
Let's the experts do.
I&#x
-boun...@reactos.org] De la
part de Pierre Schweitzer
Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
À : ros-dev@reactos.org
Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
Hi all,
Let's the experts do.
I've contacted the A
s.org [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org]
>> De la
>> part de Pierre Schweitzer
>> Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
>> À : ros-dev@reactos.org
>> Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
>> FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation t
voyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24 À : ros-dev@reactos.org Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT] FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time. Hi all, Let's the experts do. I've contacted the April (French association which mission is to promote and de
...@reactos.org]
> De la
> part de Pierre Schweitzer
> Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 18:24
> À : ros-dev@reactos.org
> Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [ekohl] 61145: [FASTFAT]
> FsdGetFsVolumeInformation: Return volume creation time.
>
> Hi all,
>
>
On 29.11.2013 20:31, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
To give you my position:
1. Current FAT driver in ReactOS needs to die away. I am testing all my
new code with the MS's FASTFAT driver.
2. Lawyers advice is needed whether we can distribute it.
Please excuse my ignorance, but wasn't there the plan to i
I understand as
>>> Aleksander: that
>>> you can only use fastfat or derived works from it, on an (authentic)
>>> Windows
>>> OS (just my 2 cents, I'm not a lawyer too).
>>>
>>> Hermès.
>>>
>>> -Message d'origine---
Well, at this rate, M$ may need to pay us for fixing their broken (open
source) floppy disk driver..
So, it sounds like we cannot include any MS-LPL code in our trunk without
> any prior legal work.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre
>
___
Ros-dev mailing list
R
If Nuno would be accurate, then Virtual Box is in violation of the
DDK/WDK/LPL license, because they are distributing the source of their vbox
drivers which are based on DDK/WDK, and the vbox drivers run on ReactOS.
In fact, any company that uses the DDK/WDK/LPL license would be sued if
their driv
Alex Ionescu wrote:
> I think it would be beneficial to have a project, call it "React
> Drivers" or something, which is a distinct tree/etc from the mainline.
>
> [...]
>
> The flip side of this is that now the ReactOS tree no longer has an
> inbox fdc driver.
I have to ask, considering all the
Hi Alex,
Long time no speak.
On 2013-12-01 23:07, Alex Ionescu wrote:
If Nuno would be accurate, then Virtual Box is in violation of the
DDK/WDK/LPL license, because they are distributing the source of their
vbox drivers which are based on DDK/WDK, and the vbox drivers run on
ReactOS.
Attenti
On 02.12.2013 3:02, Colin Finck wrote:
I have to ask, considering all the complications and disadvantages such
a system would bring and all the work that has been put into our own
drivers over the years: Why is it absolutely necessary to replace our
existing drivers by MS example code wherever p
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> To conclude, our existing fastfast totally sucks. cdfs does too. Fixing
> them is a waste of time. Rewriting them - good project, but noone will
> use that driver.
So what is the alternative? Shipping ReactOS without any FAT driver? ;)
The license discussions have already
Imo, up to me, we ship with minimal drivers to get to 2nd stage, and then
wipe everything with the WDK sample project.
Or we simply don't provide a bootable all-in-one CD. We make two separate
downloads and somehow make an easy-to-use "slipstreamer" that builds the
final CD. How to do this at conf
Greetings:
I haven't posted on the forums or anything for a good while now, but I still
keep tabs on the mailing lists and such.
On similar lines as Mr. Ionescu's suggestion, a separate disk could be made
that includes a collection of drivers, which for binary blob/licensing reasons
(or simply
Hi,
normally, I wouldn't have any problem with having drivers on a second disc
/ image. But FAT (and in particular cdfs) are core-drivers in my opinion,
which are needed almost every time - also for booting from CD for
installation. FAT is widely used still today, e.g. on usb-sticks.
What are cur
These are all legitimate concerns for a FAT driver, but keep in mind the
WDK library also has things like large chunks of the storage stack, the
input stack, the floppy stack, audio and network stuff, etc...
We could decide to keep our current FAT driver (or find a workaround), but
still implement
Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have generic
drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download the
Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating Microsofts
license.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> These are all
Hi
About discussions about MS license. the question is if
the license agreement to restrict only to Microsoft Windows is valid in EU.
I do not think so. But only a lawyers can tell about that. Rest of the
world I do not known.
In sweden lest we got so call negative license agreement. That mean pa
Copyright law is pretty clear, they can control the terms of distribution
of their code and what it can be bundled with.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Magnus Olsen wrote:
> Hi
> About discussions about MS license. the question is if
> the license agreement to restrict only to Microsoft Windo
Nuno Brito wrote:
> Would you please point me to the files that are under Microsoft
> copyright on vbox? I can check which kind of license they have.
Alex was probably referring to the i8042prt driver that was part of the
VirtualBox Guest Additions a while ago (see [1]). But in the meantime,
Orac
I was actually talking about their miniport/vga driver, which as of ~2
years ago was basically the DDK samples with the GPL slapped on top, as
well as their i8042pnp driver (this is an XP driver, not NT4) which was
also similarly the MS code with the GPL slapped on top. Perhaps once Oracle
bought t
Am 02.12.2013 22:05 schrieb "Steven Edwards" :
>
> Look at how the Core Fonts for the Web are handled. We should have
generic drivers that are 'good enough' to be able get online and download
the Microsoft ones if the user wants to take the risk of violating
Microsofts license.
There is a little p
i like the idea of an alternate disk of "roughly legal" stuff (because of
licenses), it would be something like the "restricted" and "multiverse"
repositories in Ubuntu.
But, im totally against including not-GPL (or GPL-compatible) stuff into
ReactOS, because that could lead the project into a big
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
>
> There is a little problem however: we are talking about the file system
> driver which is usually used to install the system. I don't know currently
> how Windows manages to update in use boot drivers, but we'd need something
> equivalent in pl
"Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special
dispensation if we just ask. Stranger things have happened. "
in that case, we should ask Microsoft before taking such a risky action.
And remember, no answer means "no".
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Steven Edwards wrote:
> O
Old news, but a very nice one:
http://slashdot.org/story/13/12/07/1241221/german-court-invalidates-microsoft-fat-patent
Regards,
Aleksey Bragin
On 03.12.2013 21:32, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo wrote:
"Who knows, maybe Microsoft will be amicable to give us a special
dispensation if we just a
35 matches
Mail list logo
