Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World?

GvG writes "Yesterday, Ekush version 0.10 was released (binary only, no source). Ekush is a relatively new attempt at cloning Microsoft Windows. The ReactOS project has the goal of creating a GPLed OS that is compatible with Microsoft Windows applications and drivers. The release of Ekush caused some uproar in the ReactOS community, since it soon became apparent that Ekush was not much more than a repackaged version of ReactOS. Doing a simple string search for ReactOS on the Ekush binaries showed a number of hits. (Read on for more.)

GvG continues "Shortly after this was reported on the ReactOS mailing list, the Ekush website went down "for maintenance". Today they are back with a slightly altered set of binaries, which no longer contain the ASCII string "ReactOS". However, they forgot to search for Unicode strings... Ekush is not only violating the rights of ReactOS by deriving a product without releasing the modified source, they also derive code of (and are violating the rights of) Wine, FreeType and QEmu."

Larry Snyder adds "Additionally, at the time of this writing, their binary floppy diskette driver appears to be a near exact copy of the Windows 2k pro fdc.sys driver, with the copyright string and header changed."

Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[jellomizer]

It is too bad that a lot of people confuse Open Source with Public Domain. That is the problem with free software that is open source is that people feel compelled that they could use it to "Make" their own product without any form of recognition to the original developers. While I feel the GPL is strict on a lot of thing that it shouldn't be but just blatantly releasing a product that is based off an Open Source project with a different license is just wrong. I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software. It is too bad that Commercial Enterprise doesn't respect IP Rights.

Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[SmallFurryCreature]

I think the problem here is that people rape the GPL. Not open source. You see you say open source is not the same as public domain. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Open source only tells you that you have access to the source. It tells nothing about any other part of the license. A piece of public domain could just as easily be closed source as open source.

With BSD you have far less requirements to give credit to the original creator.

So change the words open source in your speech with GPL and you are righ

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[lukewarmfusion]

"You see you say open source is not the same as public domain. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG."

Uhh... only public domain is public domain. Open source is NOT the same as public domain. He's completely correct in this statement.

GPL, BSD, LGPL, etc. are different licenses, true... but none of them are public domain. Public domain refers to a work that has no license attached to it because it was either released to the public domain or the copyright expired.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[grahamlee]

The BSD licence is nothing like Public Domain - with PD the ownership is transferred to the public. With BSD, the ownership (and hence any copyright entitlements associated with ownership) are still held by the author, except if copyright is assigned elsewhere (which is illegal in some areas). Even the much more permissive MIT licence - which says "you may do wtf you like with my software" - still implies control is retained by the original owner, and is not PD.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[modecx]

WTF? In no way is BSD like public domain. Public Domain means that nobody owns the copyrights (or in that same token that EVERYONE owns the copyrights), or that the copyrights have expired.

BSD is a liscense, just like any other. BSD is completely unrelated to copyright, except in that if you follw the rules of the liscense you gain the ability to use those copyrighted works within the bounds of the liscense--just like the GPL. Liscenses are like chisels, and copyrights are like wood, and in this way th

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[B3ryllium]

Actually, with BSD, one of your only requirements is to give credit to the original creator. No royalties necessary, though.

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[Jonathan the Nerd]

No. The term "Open Source" is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative [opensource.org] and/or Software in the Public Interest [spi-inc.org], and it has a very specific meaning [opensource.org].

Re:Open source != gpl. Let the license wars begin!

[rpdillon]

Yeah, just like "Western Union", "Internet Explorer", "Lotus Notes", "Word", "Excel", "Access", "Windows" and lets not forget things that are similar, too, like "Lindows".

So, yeah, while I agree with your sentiment, deal with it. Don't take your anger out on "Open Source" of all things, try one of the others. "Windows" is always a good starting point. =P

Not just a problem for free software.

[twitter]

I think there should be more education for the public that Free Software is not Public Domain and ripping off Open Source Work is just as bad a Pirating Closed Source Software.

"Ripping off" free software is actually worse because it confuses the message of free software. The message of free software is that free people can co-operate to make tools for themselves that work. A ripped free software tool with "improvements" directly undermines that message by trying to convince people that they need some closed software to make their lives easier. Typically, the ripped version is inferior but the money involved will create a stream of advertising that says otherwise. Public education on the value, cause and workings of free software is an ongoing project [fsf.org].

It is too bad that a lot of people confuse Open Source with Public Domain.

No, these bozos knew what they were doing and did not limit their "theft" to free software. They knew that they were violating licenses for free software just as much as they knew they were violating M$'s license by distributing their floppy driver. Since having the obvious string matches pointed out, they have tried to replace them without bothering to replace binaries or release source code. As the easiest thing to do would be to release source code, these people are up to no good and know it.

We shall see if they come clean. If they don't and M$ does not clean their clock, we can draw further conclusions.

Re:Major question for Slashdotters

[Tim C]

That's something I've wondered myself. Now, it's true that the two sets of people (those decrying GPL violations and similar, and those defending infringing copyrights on music and movies and similar) are not identical. However, for each article on each topic, there are a lot of highly-rated posts expressing each of those views, as appropriate. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that the consensus on slashdot is that infringing the GPL = bad, infringing movie/music/etc copyright = okay.

Me, I view all IP rights infringement as bad, unless there are strongly mitigating circumstances (by which I mean, people's lives are on the line), but I do feel myself to be in a minority here at times.

To all those of you reading this and thinking "but there are many views here!" that's true. But just look at the tones of the various articles, and the sorts of comments that get posted in response. Articles about the RIAA and MPAA suing filesharers for copyright violations always have a bias towards that being a bad thing, and yet we have articles taking companies to task for violating the GPL. Well, slashdot, you can't have it both ways, and no, predatory business practices and high prices don't excuse people infringing copyrights.

Re:Major question for Slashdotters

[_xeno_]

It's hard not to come to the conclusion that the consensus on slashdot is that infringing the GPL = bad, infringing movie/music/etc copyright = okay.

To be fair (and I do agree with you, by the way), the general view is usually closer to "infringing copyright for profit = bad, infringing copyright for personal use = good." So it's not soley a GPL vs Big Buisness thing.

I'm sure that if some company out there ripped of Britnee Speares and started trying to sell her CDs as their own, most Slashdotters wo

Re:Major question for Slashdotters

[booch]

I think I can shed some light on the seemingly contradictory ideals that many folks hold regarding violation of GPL versus music "piracy".

First, very few of the pro-music-"piracy" folks believe that it's OK to sell the music they "steal" for money. Their main arguments are that the prices music companies want to charge are artifically inflated; and until recently, the music companies did not even offer legal copies of the music in the formats that the listeners were using. Also, many music downloaders (myself included, when I was on Napster) consider the P2P sharing a way to discover new music by "borrowing" a copy. Personally, my Napster usage caused me to buy several more CDs than I would have otherwise.

Second, the GPLed code is available for no cost already, so there's no money-saving incentive to break the GPL. Instead, those who purposely violate the GPL are causing something to be less free, while collecting money for it. Also, passing off someone else's work as your own is an additional moral infraction, beyond just re-distribution.

You could almost characterize it as "stealing from the rich" versus "stealing from the poor". Even if you agree that "pirating" music is wrong, you're still likely to agree that stealing from the poor is a more reprehensible action. And people have always gotten bent out of shape by sellers trying to pull a fast one on consumers.

Conversely, you could argue that music "piracy" is actually causing monetary harm to the IP owners, which is potentially damaging to their livelihoods. (I.e. it's worse to take money away from someone than to profit from something that was previously free.) But I think those who support music "piracy" believe that the monetary damages are minimal, if not outweighed by the benefits to the IP owners. Heck, even the music studios are aware of and take advantage of the benefits.

Re:Major question for Slashdotters

[arodland]

Consider: the GPL is a tool designed to use copyright law to "defang" copyright. Yes, it introduces its own set of restrictions, but they are quite different from the "creator ownership" of modern copyright. There's a reason it gets called "copyleft".

Perhaps it's just that people are against copyright when it's used to smother creativity, and more supportive of it when it's crammed back into its original role of fostering creativity. Or maybe slashdotters just like to rip off music. Doesn't matter that muc

Re:Major question for Slashdotters

[Some Dumbass...]

Well, slashdot, you can't have it both ways, and no, predatory business practices and high prices don't excuse people infringing copyrights.

Is it not possible that there's one group of posters and moderators who support not infringing the GPL, and a _totally different group_ (possibly a younger one :) which supports infringing copyrights? It this perspective so out there that people have a hard time figuring it out for themselves?

I mean, really, the parent post mentions that there are "many views here", but that information does not seem to be a part of the poster's thought process. Yes, "many views", or "two sets of people", does explain everything. Period. Yes, it is easier to think of SlashDot as some sort of unified intelligence than to think of a collection of people. But SlashDot is just a collection of people. Assigning opinions to SlashDot itself is sophistry. Who exactly is the "you" in "you can't have it both ways"?

I say that as someone who opposes both GPL infringment and file sharing. I exist, thank you!

Re:Major question for Slashdotters

[jonbryce]

We don't complain if you take ReactOS or PearPC and put it on a filesharing network. In fact we encourage you to do this.

What we complain about is taking something, changing the name, a few text strings and some images, and claiming you wrote it yourself.

This would be like taking one of Britney Spear's songs, changing the name and saying it was you who wrote it. I can't think why you would want to do that, but nevertheless, it could happen.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[Tim C]

It is too bad that Commercial Enterprise doesn't respect IP Rights.

Bullshit. That's an overly broad generalisation if ever I heard one.

[Disclaimer: the following should not be taken to represent the views of my employer and is purely my own, personal opinion]

The vast majority of "commercial enterprises" that respect IP rights, if only because not doing so can quite easily land you in court. Speaking as a senior programmer paid mostly to create closed-source web apps, I can tell you that I and my colleagues take IP rights issues extremely seriously. We won't even use trial software past the expiration of the trial period, or for commercial purposes (eg working on an actual client project) if the terms forbid it. Why not? We create software for a living. If people don't pay us to write software, we (eventually) don't get paid. Why, then, would I not afford other programmers the same consideration that I ask for? It's called "enlightened self-interest".

Now, I appreciate that there are from time to time stories on here about such and such a company violating the GPL. I'm not saying that no company does so; regrettably, human nature being what it is, there will always be some that do so. However, to say that "commercial enterprise doesn't respect IP rights" is so far from the truth as to be verging on flamebait. Let me put it this way - some open source coders pirate movies, games, etc. Does that mean that I can say that "it's too bad that Open Source Coders don't respect IP Rights"?

Sorry for the pseudo-flame, but this place really needs to tone down the anti-business rhetoric sometimes. Making money isn't automatically evil.

I am the parent poster and I agree

[jellomizer]

I am the parent poster and I agree.
I develop custom software for a lot of companies and making sure that I follow the licenes is very dear to me because that way the company feels comfortable, with me and feels secure using the project. If I use a GPL Library I tell them that I am using a GPL library and if anyone want the source to this program you will have to release it to them. Which isn't an issue for most companies because their Data is far more important then the sourcecode use to manipulate it.

BTW.
I was actually making a little joke to conflect Microsoft and SCO who accuse Open Source Programmers not Respecting IP which is just the same gross generalisation.

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I develop custom software for a lot of companies and making sure that I follow the licenes is very dear to me because that way the company feels comfortable, with me and feels secure using the project. If I use a GPL Library I tell them that I am using a GPL library and if anyone want the source to this program you will have to release it to them.

Maybe you were just being sloppy with your terminology, but what you wrote is incorrect.

If you incorporate GPL'd code into custom software, the only people who

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[runderwo]

If you incorporate GPL'd code into custom software, the only people who are entitled to the source code of the program are the entities who receive the binary of the program -- not just anyone who wants the source.

Wrong. Have you read the GPL? See section 3b. If you do not distribute the source to the recipient of the binary, you must provide offer valid for any third party to request the source from you. So yes, other folks can very well be entitled to the source code of the program under the GPL if you don't give your customer the source up front.

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[Chris Burke]

I think nits are being picked here, since I think his point was about not distributing the software, which is what I believe the original case of custom software was describing.

Here's the deal: If you don't distribute binaries to any third party, then you do not have to offer the source to any third party.

If you do distribute binaries to any third party, then you do have to offer the source to any third party.

Being able to keep your program to yourself is a fundamental right the GPL doesn't violate. It doesn't force you to distribute your program, it only forces you to distribute source when/if you distribute your program.

You probably agree with what I've said, so I hope everyone is clear now.

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Wrong. Have you read the GPL? See section 3b. If you do not distribute the source to the recipient of the binary, you must provide offer valid for any third party to request the source from you.

As a developer of custom software myself, it did not even occur to me that a client would accept an executable without full source too. I suppose such suckers do exist somewhere out there, so I'll give you that.

However unlikely such a hypothetical situation might be in real life, if the developer does not satisfy

Re:I am the parent poster and I agree

[XO]

If I --sell-- you the binary, under terms that you may not just copy it and give it away, then I have to provide YOU the source.

That doesn't mean that I have to provide the source to someone if YOU gave them the binary, without license to do so.

The GPL does not prohibit commercial software. It prohibits CLOSED software.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[jasonbowen]

Hmmm, my experience has been that I've worked several places where a competitors IP was available on-site. That isn't anti-business, that's a fact of life.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[Ohreally_factor]

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Remember Kohlberg's stages of moral development [nd.edu]? Not everyone is at the same moral stage. If everyone was at step 5 (Social Contract) or step 6 (Principled Conscience), we wouldn't need to have laws governing IP rights. We wouldn't need laws at all. Now, a commercial enterprise is often composed of multiple individuals. The chances are very low that all of those individuals are at the same moral plane, let alone at the highest. So, we have a legal system that aims first

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[randalx]

I don't think it's a question of understanding the GPL. I think these people are just crooks who wish to make a fast buck and couldn't care less about breaking the laws until they get sued. And since most OS projects have limited funds they are less fearful.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[minus_273]

well, its the same as people downloading music off the net. why cant people just respect the IP rights of artists? how about warez sites? Same mentality leads to both except one is not flamed as badly on slashdot.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[mpe]

well, its the same as people downloading music off the net. why cant people just respect the IP rights of artists?

Assuming these artists actually still have any IP rights...

how about warez sites?

Actually what is going on in these examples is non-commercial infringement. Whereas the company involved is enguaged in commercial infringement. Often the law provides stiffer penalties and stronger investigative/enforcement powers with respect to the latter.

hmmmmmmmm

[orasio]

Well, IP Rights do not deserve capitals, in my opinion.

If you are talking about copyrights, well, it can be argued that they should be respected by big players, at least in the current state of affairs.

If you refer to anything else that is not copyright by that "IP Rights" title, I disagree with you. Things like software patents and such should not be respected, because it is of no use.

On the other hand, although we would all be better off without copyrights in the first place, while we are forced to res

They're not, though

[phorm]

It's not about confusing OS with public domain, that would imply a mistake or misinterpretation. These folks are knowingly violating copyright. They're changing things to make it look like it's an unrelated product to hide that fact (especially if the "fdc.sys" statement is true)

With apparently violations across the board for Ekush, I wonder what it would be like to have GPL-using companies and MS in the same courtroom, sueing the same defendant...

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[jellomizer]

Sigh...
I Guess I was to subtile in my joke "Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights?" I was just pointing out the same argument that Big Companies make for their comerical products to Open Source people and switching the roles around.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[nicolas.e]

In this particular case, I dont't think that they don't get the GPL. They deliberately violate it : they removed the strings from the GPLed code... They also appear to illegaly distribute a file which came from Windows, after having altered the strings.

Re:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights

[gormanly]

Funny, but adds to the confusion surrounding IP of various sorts.

For the record, all works not explicitly released into the public domain have copyright protection. The authors may choose to license some rights under the GPL, BSD license, or v6.66 of the Microsoft EULA. Without the protection of copyright, there could *be* no GPL!

Is this another attempt...

[NinjaPablo]

...at getting purposely slashdotted for the purpose of testing some new server-side app like CherryOS turned out to be?

Re:Is this another attempt...

[apanap]

Actually, they still claim they will release Cherry OS on November 25 [cherryos.com].

As a direct result of the overwhelming response to our October 12 announcement, and in order to provide current and future customers with the timely service and attention such high-volume demand requires, MXS has chosen to extend the beta development for CherryOS. In order to accommodate those who were inconvenienced by the interruption of immediate access to the CherryOS download, and to further validate this breakthrough product, MXS will provide a free trial download of the CherryOS software, in addition to the purchase download on November 25, 2004.

It'll be interresting to see if they will actually still try to release it after it's already been proven to be a fake.

Enforced Dilution?

[torpor]

Could it be that these various randomly 'popping-up' projects, gathering press around the 'theft' of code from OSS projects, is part of a larger dilution strategy?

Re:Enforced Dilution?

[wooby]

I think that the tendency of people to steal is the more likely culprit. The "larger strategy" you perceive is probably, for better or for worse, just the darker side of human nature.

IT WAS ASHCROFT, HE'S IN WITH THE ALIENS

[mcc]

That wouldn't really work. Stealing from OSS won't dilute the copyright; legally you can't dilute copyright. What WILL happen is that OSS will gain strength because they will have successful examples and experience under their belt with defending copylefted copyrights from theft.

I think if we're going to have a conspiracy theory, a slightly more realistic-- and more fun!-- one would be that a series of dedicated but unskilled open source programmers formed a professional suicide pact a couple years ago whe

Only natural

[DogDude]

I don't think think it's any kind of conspiracy. It's very simple. You give away code for free, and ask everybody politely not to steal it please, with no real money or leverage to back it up. Well, anyone who's older than 8 should not be so naive as to expect everybody to respect their wishes. That's just delusional. Of course open source code is going to be stolen and used in closed source apps, or poprietary apps. It's probably already been done thousands of times, and will continue to happen.

It'

Get the nooses ready boys...

[DamienMcKenna]

we's gonna get ourselves a GPL violator!

Damien

Re:Get the nooses ready boys...

[blowdart]

Imagine the confusion when this bunch get sued.

"Hurrah" shouts slashdot "serves you right for breaking the gpl"

by Microsoft lawyers

"Boo" shouts slashdot, "they are stopped competition"

cue explosions of heads all around.

Re:Get the nooses ready boys...

[geg81]

You don't understand the difference between copyrights and patents.

Many people here are for Microsoft enforcing Microsoft copyrights to the full extent of the law: only if Microsoft actually enforces their copyrights do people realize how overpriced their software actually is. But Microsoft marketing knows full well that the company wouldn't exist without widespread piracy. Selective and inconsistent enforcement by companies like Microsoft is a huge problem.

What people get upset about is when Microsoft applies for patents on technology they usually didn't invent or that is blatantly obvious and then try to enforce those patents.

OK

[News for nerds]

Now we neeed a Cherry OS for Linux
Oh wait...

OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS

[isolation]

I have already covered it here.

http://www.winehq.com/?interview=14

Re:OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS

[Havokmon]

OT Q: Are you using ReactOS as your primary OS yet?

Re:OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS

[isolation]

Not yet. Networking will be done at the end of the year and then I will. I use ReactOS quite a bit now but most of my time is still spent in Linux.

One thing your interview didnt say

[beuges]

Will reactos binaries work under ms windows? I see in another post you say you've got an explorer clone, and some other clones of windows programs. I'd imagine your binaries would have to be .exe's and .dll's. Would I be able to replace my explorer.exe with your's? Of course chances are there'd probably be some programs that won't like the change very much, but have you tried running your apps under ms windows, and how well do they work?

Re:One thing your interview didnt say

[isolation]

They do. In fact we develop quite a bit on Windows and then bring the applications over to ReactOS. explorer.exe taskmgr, regedit and quite a few of the drivers were developed on Windows as well as the Win32 libraries were ported from Wine back to Windows.

Re:One thing your interview didnt say

[dosius]

I've used 0.23 versions of ROS Explorer and CMD.EXE on Windows 98SE and they work quite well.

Moll.

Bangladesh

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The website mntions that its designed for the Bangladesh market. I went to college with a prince of Bangladesh. He screwed me over on our final project for physics. Didn't show up for the presentation, then claimed that he had done all of the work I presented. Unfortunate for him, he didn't relalise that I had been consulting the professor on a regular basis about the project. So it was obvious who was telling the truth. I'm not saying everyone there is corrupt. In fact, the only problem I had with the situation is that he didn't even offer me a bribe of any kind.

Re:Bangladesh

[Hal_Porter]

Well that's it then. Up until now I knew nothing about Bangladesh and cared less, but now you've posted that anecdote I hate everyone there.

Nuke 'em I say.

Bang Ladesh?

[gr8_phk]

Who is Ladesh and why does everyone say to bang her?

Re:Bangladesh

[SilveRo_kun]

Bill, that was MY project, stop lying already >:(

Prince Ekush of Bangladesh.

Re:Bangladesh

[Rude Turnip]

If you think that's bad, check this out...when I was in college I was writing a program called Napster. I must have fallen asleep or something, because my roommate, Shawn Fanning, swiped my only copy of the code which was on a floppy disk sticking out of my PC!

Re:Bangladesh

[mikeage]

Never judge places you've never been to. That's what they do in Russia.

Sorry.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I just thought the parallel was interesting. I really didn't mean to spread any predjudice. But, there is a bit of truth in saying that the contry is corrupt. Read this [cnn.com] Bangladesh was recently named the most corrupt nation on earth.

Always liked the ReactOS concept

[eltoyoboyo]

I have been distantly following the ReactOS project and even gave it a short test in a Virtual PC environment. It has a long way to go yet. It also has a tough uphill battle since you could (feasibly) purchase Windows NT and licenses on eBay and outfit yourself with the real deal, minus ongoing support from Microsoft.

So is this a fork in the code? And why would you do such a fork at such an early stage? I cannot see that there is any money to be made from ReactOS or EKush yet.

Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept

[eltoyoboyo]

Good point on the embedded development. And you are right, there are many windows platform developers out there. I think that you are doing a commendable job on the integration of the Wine and React OS.

I am not building embedded systems, I work with VARs and Integrators at large commercial companies and state government to set up applications that run on Windows platforms. So for me, (And this is only my opinion as you know), ReactOS is not ready for prime time yet. I would not be able to convince anyone

Re:Always liked the ReactOS concept

[EddWo]

Someone might say
"Of course you're having stability problems, you're copying Windows!"
but I would never be that unkind. ;-)

So let me get this streight...

[Anonymous Coward]

they stole code BOTH from Microsoft (modyfing microsoft binaries and such) AND from ReactOS? Gosh, talk about being chum in the shark pool at feeding time! It must really suck to be ashkor.

Re:So let me get this streight...

[Havokmon]

they stole code BOTH from Microsoft (modyfing microsoft binaries and such) AND from ReactOS? Gosh, talk about being chum in the shark pool at feeding time! It must really suck to be ashkor.

Helloooo! They _are_ Microsoft attempting to inject FUD into GPL and Open Source projects, duh!

Please leave your conspiracy badge at the door when you leave.

Bangladesh

[thing12]

They do have copyright law in Bangladesh -- they signed onto the Universal Copyright Convention. And they're WTO members, so that's even more restrictive when it comes to intellectual property.

I hope they speak C better than English

[karmaflux]

Microsoft Windows is the most acknowledged operating system throughout the world. But it is highly dominated artifact to the people and MS have a monopoly to our desktop. Due to the fact, EKUSH is a lineup effort to the Win32 platform, an alternative OS to run your existing windows applications. Our focus is to build the alternative platform; a brilliant Operating System for our community.

Now THAT is a professional blurb -- wait here while I get my credit card!

Re:I hope they speak C better than English

[RLiegh]

Apparently they weren't fluent in C enough to write their own. ;)

Report them to Microsoft

[The Wicked Priest]

for fdc.sys. They'll stomp them but good. And we'll get GPL enforcement as a free side-effect!

How dumb can they be?

[theparanoidcynic]

You'd think that, maybe, by the time they're compitent enough to even attempt to pull shit like this people would understand such "1337" tools as strings and grep.

Not only are they crooks they're no more than script kiddies . . . . .

Hilarious...

[sydbarrett74]

They got hit with in-school suspension....

All gone

[loftwyr]

They're website has been suspended by the hosting company. I think maybe somebody at M$ noticed the posting here...

Diggingg dirt.

[Anonymous Coward]

A whois shows:

Registrant
Shamsuddoha Ranju
Siemens Road #115, House #39/B
Gulshan, Dhaka 1213
BD

Registrar..: IARegistry.com (http://www.iaregistry.com)
AKSHOR.COM
Created on..............: 02-Oct-2001
Expires on..............: 02-Oct-2006

Administrative Contact:
Ranju, Shamsuddoha [e-mail]
Alpona Portal
Siemens
ZN Tower, Road # 8, Plot # 2
Gulshan, Dhaka 1212 BD
+880.18.218638 (FAX) +880.2.8819702
Technical Contact:
Ranju, Shamsuddoha [e-mail]
Alpona Portal
Siemens
ZN Tower, Road # 8, Plot # 2
Gulshan, Dhaka 1212 BD
+880.18.218638 (FAX) +880.2.8819702

The interesting thing is that this guy is not a stranger to OSS either, he's got a savannah account [nongnu.org].

A picture of this con artist showing off the work of other's he's trying to take credit for: here [thedailystar.net]

The related article [thedailystar.net] says:
"Licensing is one of the problems the Ekush team is expecting to face. As the project is not based in the US, Ekush OS will not be able to obtain the license banner of General Public License (GPL), the US-based licensing company."

Showing that either Mr. Ranju or the journalist (or likely both) have little clue on the GPL.

Re:Diggingg dirt.

[Kiryat Malachi]

It could just be a bad translation; the GPL does seem to be dependent on US/Western-style copyright law for it to be effective. And while the GPL is not a company, that could just be bad translation or a journalist being thrown off by something said and then poorly translated.

But probably they're just both clueless, you're right.

Slashdotted...

[ab384]

Site is either slashdotted or their hosting account has just expired.

You'd think hosting companies would by now have a special "bandwidth limit exceeded by hordes of people from ./" page to put up to ./ requests, and just let "normal" traffic through...

Intent

[nurb432]

The fact they went back to hide more 'evidence' clearly shows their intent.

Anyone can mess up ( 'we plan on releasing source',' we didnt mean to change said copyright text', etc ).. But clearly this isnt a screwup.

Looks like their site has been turned off by their hosting service.

scary

[jonathanduty]

May just be me, but its scary to hear the phrases "cloning Microsoft Windows" and GPL in the same context. Seems like we are just creating a door for legal problems.

Re:scary

[jonathanduty]

the charter of Open Office or Firebird is not to create a "clone" of MS Office or Explorer, but to create a different product that targets simular markets. Seems to me when the goal of your project is to clone another, thats when problems could start.

can't be

[Doc Ruby]

If Ashcroft were here, he'd be going after these Linux copywrongdoers tooth and nail! Er, because he accomplished the goal of securing the US from crime and terror...

Front Page?!?

[The Cisco Kid]

ReactOS may well be cool, but *UGH* they really need to find someone that knows how to write HTML.

I wondered why as I hovered over links the font size changed, cusing the entire page to flicker all over the place - then I found why:

From their page source:

meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"

Friends dont let Friends use MSFP

Re:Front Page?!?

[The Cisco Kid]

Even funnier - I just went to download an ISO, and its *in a ZIP file*.

Hosting suspended?

[Geccoman]

Just tried to hit the link for the Ekush site and got --

This Hosting Account is Expired/Suspended

If you are the site administrator click here to contact with Technobd.com

Pit nicking

[slashdot.org]

they also derive code of (and are violating the rights of) Wine, FreeType and QEmu

Just a pit-nick; AFAIK FreeType is distributed under a license [sourceforge.net] which does not require redistribution of source.

Re:Pit nicking

[julesh]

No, but it does require this:

You may not pretend that you wrote this software. If you use
it, or only parts of it, in a program, you must acknowledge
somewhere in your documentation that you have used the
FreeType code. (`credits')

Re:Pit nicking

[Zak3056]

Just a pit-nick; AFAIK FreeType is distributed under a license which does not require redistribution of source.

I know this is slashdot, and all, but maybe you should read what you're linking to:

This license grants a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual and
irrevocable right and license to use, execute, perform, compile,
display, copy, create derivative works of, distribute and
sublicense the FreeType Project (in both source and object code
forms) and derivative works thereof

Announcing FishIx, a Linux-Compatible OS

[FFFish]

That's right. I've decided that tomorrow I'm going to release a new operating system. It will be a POSIX-compliant OS that will have complete Linux compatibility. It's also going to have a great desktop GUI that is 100% compatible with KDE.

The package will be named FishIx and FDE.

Now, away to the FishCave! I've grepping to do if I'm going to get this done in time! Kernel.Org is the place to grab source, right?

Re:Announcing FishIx, a Linux-Compatible OS

[FFFish]

Oh, damn, I've already run into a snag.

Anyone able to give me quick instructions on how to run a kernel compile? I've never done this before...

Re:Not a bad idea

[isolation]

Slow???

We have third party drivers loading, a explorer.exe clone, application support such as OpenOffice for Win32 loading not to mention we have made replacement apps for regedit, taskmgr, and a Windows like install system. Whats slow about ReactOS development?

Re:Not a bad idea

[LnxAddct]

Nothing is slow about it! Ignore the moron :) You guys are doing an awesome job and it's much appreciated. Please keep up the great work. I think the grandparent underestimates the challenge at hand. The fact that you guys are making the progress that you have seems amazing.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Not a bad idea

[Alex_Ionescu]

Considering that NT was built on 10 years of development (NT4), and that ReactOS has only really been in steady development since 3/4 years, and that we already support some Windows 2003/Longhorn features, I wouldn't call it slow.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Kernel Developer, ReactOS

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

sigh...

[TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R]

...There is a huge difference here. People don't download the latest *insert crappy pop artist here* and claim that they wrote that song.

Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle

[drakaan]

You're confusing theft and fair use, I'm afraid.

In music/movies/etc...you are granted fair use rights to create archival copies of those movies or music. True, some go over the top and want communist music and movies, but that's not necessary to allow you to make an mp3 of a song on a CD you own.

In this story, there is an existing license available for others to be able to reuse some copyrighted material, but copying, in and of itself is not the problem. If the jackasses who stole the GPL'ed software ha

The difference between software and music/movies

[tepples]

What's that I keep hearing around here when music and movie copyrights are violated, "it's not stolen

The difference is that courts tend to interpret the exclusive right to prepare derivative works much more broadly for "creative" works, such as musical works, sound recordings, dramatic literary works, and audiovisual works[1], than for "functional" works such as computer programs. Analogy is as if Microsoft could copyright the Windows API, making Wine an infringement, or if Xerox and Apple could copyrig

Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle

[maxwell demon]

Or to state it shorter:
There's a difference between copying and plagiarism.

Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle

[jusdisgi]

Not to mention that even the courts hold a much different standard for infringement based on whether or not the end goal was financial gain. Your average music piracy is not-for-profit.

Re:Not Sure This Matters Beyound Principle

[stubear]

Copyright violation confers five basic rights to the creator:

1) The right to distribute (making copies available on the internet is most certainly distribution)

2) The right to make copies (there are some fair use exemptions to this but they are very limited and making copies available on the internet violates this as well)

3) The right to make derivative works (this is most likely what is violated when you take someone else's code, rewrap it in another app and claim it as your own)

4) The right to display

About every possible song is already copyrighted

[tepples]

Except that a lot of people argue that file-sharers aren't claiming that the music they are sharing is their own work, and therefore it is not copyright violation either.

In some cases, it may be more likely that you infringe when you share your own musical work. Some claim that the incumbent music publishers have snapped up the copyrights in almost every possible melody [slashdot.org] in the Western musical system, making any independent work an infringing derivative work.

In addition, the definition of "theft" in s

Re:Cloning Windows?

[stratjakt]

It's not a clone, it's an OS that is trying to be Windows binary compatible.

You could say they're trying to make a better "Windows".

I know we all love linux here, but IMO the only way to take desktops away from MSFT is to replace them with something thats compatible: something that runs all the same apps and games and supports all the same hardware by way of the same drivers.

Re:Cloning Windows?

[cliffyqs]

I agree. It's the only way to get average users away from the MS they've been taught is the One True OS. But you need more than that; I remember setting up OS/2 in a lab in college; it was more stable and ran Windows (3.x) apps better than windows did. It didn't let an app crash windows and it didn't let Windows crash os/2. It was a great product. It died penniless and alone like certain literary figures in part because it didn't have a good advertising agent. if you build a better, faster, cheaper, r

Re:Publicity

[k98sven]

Hmm.. How about:

Because having thousands of people noticing 'Look! There's copyright infringement going on over at _this_ site!" is just about the fastest way to get a site shut-down nowadays.

Scams and frauds are crimes best dealt with as publicly as possible. Do you seriously believe anyone is going to buy their 'product' because of this story?

Re:they can keep the project private

[k98sven]

Apparently they've been up to rewriting copyright notices. That is illegal. There is not a single OSS license which allows you to do that.
(Except for public domain, which doesn't really count as a license.)

Re:We need lawyers on our side!

[k98sven]

You don't know what you're talking about.

If a developer doesn't want to enforce OSS license terms himself, he can always assign the copyright to somone who will. Such as the FSF (for GPL project) or the Apache foundation (for Apache-licensed projects) and so on.

The fact that the FSF hasn't actually been to court over a GPL violation isn't because they don't do anything, but rather because they're so successful at it that violators have chosen to settle instead.

Besides, what business is it of yours to ask lawyers to defend the copyright of a third party?
What if the developer/copyright owner himself doesn't care about the violation? It's nobodies business but his.

How can you claim damages on something that is free to the public to use and distribute? What is copyright violation worth when the software has no value in dollars?

This is also ridiculous. The software has value in dollars. If it didn't, there would be no point in ripping it off in the first place.

Try this: "What is the cost of commercially developing something with equal functionality?"

Re:Ah...they should have called it CheeriOS.

[Duhavid]

No, the OS that stays crunchy in milk!

Filled with vitamin fortified DLL's!

And a free application in every box!

Re:Welcome to the wonderfulll world of open-source

[RyanAXP]

Are you trolling? I ask because you've conflated several issues which are utterly unrelated, and you besmirch "open source" as some sort of WareZ or SerialZ scheme. If you're not trolling, then it's clear you are ignorant of these subjects.

First of all, your first assertion--that "the wonderfulll world of open-source" somehow advocates stealing intellectual property is patently ludicrous. If you care to browse the mailing-list archives for nearly any open-source project, and ReactOS's in particular, you