Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World? 348

Posted by timothy from the ripping-out-the-label dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World? More

Ekush: A CherryOS For the Windows World?

Comments Filter:

  • Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:33AM (#10776237)
    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.
    • 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

    • Not just a problem for free software. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:52AM (#10776455) Homepage Journal
      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:Why cant Comerical Enterprise respect IP Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:52AM (#10776460)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:01AM (#10776575)
        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.
        • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

            by runderwo ( 609077 ) * <runderwo.mail@win@org> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:50AM (#10777089)
            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 (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:02AM (#10777217) Homepage
              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.
            • 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
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by randalx ( 659791 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:57AM (#10776516)
      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.
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by phorm ( 591458 )
      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...

  • Is this another attempt... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NinjaPablo ( 246765 ) <jimolding13@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:34AM (#10776244) Homepage Journal
    ...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... (Score:4, Informative)

      by apanap ( 804545 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:20AM (#10777436) Journal
      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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisumNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:35AM (#10776260) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wooby ( 786765 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:40AM (#10776331) Journal
      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.
    • 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
    • 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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DamienMcKenna ( 181101 ) <damien@mc - k e nna.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:36AM (#10776267)
    we's gonna get ourselves a GPL violator!

    Damien

  • OK (Score:5, Funny)

    by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:36AM (#10776273) Homepage
    Now we neeed a Cherry OS for Linux
    Oh wait...

  • OT - Before you ask Why ReactOS (Score:4, Informative)

    by isolation ( 15058 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:38AM (#10776293) Homepage
    I have already covered it here.

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

  • Bangladesh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:38AM (#10776300) Journal
    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.

  • Always liked the ReactOS concept (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eltoyoboyo ( 750015 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:40AM (#10776325) Journal
    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.

  • So let me get this streight... (Score:2, Funny)

    by 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.

    • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by thing12 ( 45050 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:44AM (#10776369) Homepage
    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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by karmaflux ( 148909 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:52AM (#10776459)
    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!

  • Report them to Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Wicked Priest ( 632846 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:57AM (#10776523)
    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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theparanoidcynic ( 705438 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @09:59AM (#10776545)
    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 . . . . .
  • They got hit with in-school suspension....
  • They're website has been suspended by the hosting company. I think maybe somebody at M$ noticed the posting here...

  • Diggingg dirt. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:27AM (#10776855)
    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 shamsu.ddoha@siemens.com
    Alpona Portal
    Siemens
    ZN Tower, Road # 8, Plot # 2
    Gulshan, Dhaka 1212 BD
    +880.18.218638 (FAX) +880.2.8819702
    Technical Contact:
    Ranju, Shamsuddoha unibangla@yahoo.com
    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.
    • 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... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ab384 ( 810021 )
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:32AM (#10776915) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonathanduty ( 541508 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @10:33AM (#10776924) Homepage
    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.

  • can't be (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:08AM (#10777275) Homepage Journal
    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?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) * on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:09AM (#10777292)
    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

  • Hosting suspended? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Geccoman ( 18319 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:37AM (#10777648) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by slashdot.org ( 321932 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:59AM (#10777870) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by julesh ( 229690 )
      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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) *
      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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @01:23PM (#10778892) Homepage
    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?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close