Hi, Thanks for the clarification. I welcome the new driver! On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Ros Arm <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Steven, > > I have talked with eVb and perhaps there is a language barrier: > > His commit message said that he used the NT4 DDK driver because the license > does not prohibit it (especially as only a fraction of it is used). > > He then said that there have been some small number of changes since NT4, > obviously, and that he used the Virtual Box Display Driver (available under > GPL) to figure out what those changes are. > > Since the Virtual Box Display Driver is actually the 2003 DDK driver, some > people may have wondered why not use it directly, and eVB is explaining that: > > 1) He feels very insecure about Virtual Box/Sun claiming that the code is > truly "GPL" considering the 2003 DDK does not allow that (unless Microsoft > made an exception for Sun -- do note that this code existed before VirtualBox > was under Sun, however). > > 2) There is an additional file, present both in the NT4 DDK version and in > the Virtual Box driver that has a very explicit claim that there is a color > dithering patent that Microsoft will sue you for unless you work at > Microsoft. eVb did not import that file at all in ReactOS, and so we use > standard GDI dithering code. > > eVb finally notes that the previous (ReactOS) driver was actually an obvious > copy of the DDK sample, with variables renamed to hide the truth, but some > comments are long and identical in a way that makes it clear what the > original source of the driver is. Just like VirtualBox/Sun, the developer of > this older ReactOS driver slapped a "GPL 2" license on it, because, it would > seem, renaming variables, is the sure way to be okay with a license. > (Considering the numerous other such abuses throughout the SVN tree, I'm not > surprised). eVb notes that this kind of behavior will land someone in jail > one day. > > So to summarize: > > 1) Old ReactOS driver: pretty much copy/pasted and "fixified" DDK driver to > hide the evidence, slapped with GPL 2 license. > 2) Virtual Box driver: copy/pasted DDK driver slapped with GPL 2 license, > including on top of a very threatening statement from Microsoft about their > color dithering algorithm. > 3) 2003 DDK driver: Cannot be used in open source products under most > licenses, cannot be used for non-Windows products. > 4) NT4 DDK driver: Free to use and re-license as needed (supposedly), but > contains patented code with threatening statement. > ... > 5) eVb's driver: NT4 DDK driver, not relicensed to avoid legal unknown > waters, and without the patented code present. > > For evidence of #1, one can simply compare GetAvailableModes in the current > framebuf driver in screen.c, which is listed as "Copyrighted" by a certain > "Filip Navara", and followed by a GPL 2 license. You can then check > getAvailableModes in screen.c in framebuf_new (with the correct > copyright/license of NT4 DDK). You'll note the code is identical down to the > comments. > > I for one, am thankful that not only is eVb fixing bugs in the graphics > subsystem, but also getting you out of legal trouble. > > -r > >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > - New Framebuffer (Linear) Display Driver to support new unified VGA/VBE >> > miniport. Based on NT4 DDK Sample, with modifications by me (marked with >> > // eVb) to support new functionality needed for 2003-era driver. >> > - Also used Virtual Box Display Driver as sample, which is based on "GPL" >> > Windows 2003 DDK sample driver. Could not use 2003 DDK sample directly >> > because of licensing issues, and feel unsafe about VirtualBox "GPL" driver >> > that says "PATENTED AND ONLY FOR USE IN MICROSOFT PRODUCTS". >> > - Note that old driver was based off DDK sample too, but with variables >> > renamed (some comments identical!) and code reformatted, then marked as >> > "GPL". This is not very good way to share/use code... one day someone can >> > teach you lesson. >> >> I am not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you saying >> that the wishes of the Author should not be respected? The PATENTED >> statement is an extra qualifier. We are talking about two issues, >> patents (which are vague and Copyright which is clear). Clearly the >> author being Microsoft does not want it's code used as a derived work >> for a non-windows OS. As the copyright owner and licensor that is >> their right. Or do you propose that developers ignore the copyright >> law and do it anyway? >> >> If you want to import the Windows 2003 DDK driver and create a derived >> work in violation of the terms, do the rest of us a favor and upload a >> scanned copy of your drivers license, passport or whatever as a >> resource for this driver so Microsoft will know exactly who to sue. >> >> -- >> Steven Edwards >> >> "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and >> that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ros-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
-- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
