Page 1 of 3

Part 7 - Feb 22 2002

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:29 am
by admin
#181 From: Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. krissteenhaut
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


ltning99 schreef:

> or another. So consider my use of the word 'selling' as a broad term,
> but that does not limit the consequences of 'selling stolen goods',
> which is what we are talking about here.
>

No WE aren't. YOU are, it's only you. I don't have stolen goods in my
posession, jma hasn't, nobody here has.
So, if you really want to stay hammering on that issue, you better go to
court, togheter with your pieces of evidence.



>
> > Did you know that anyone can use/build a patented thing as long
> > as you dont make any money out of it.
>
> Tell that to all the free software developers that have been jailed or
> prosecuted for their development efforts, all over the world.

Again, it's not all over the World, it's only in the USA and Japan if we are
speaking of patent rights. Maybe YOU are speaking about something else, but WE
are speaking about source codes. Source codes can't be patented in Russia and
Europe, that's how it is, period. Programs generated from source codes can be
copyrighted, but that's quite another matter.
So, whether you like it or not, we are free to examine the source codes. I am
entitled to disassemble the os2 kernel of my Warp 4 copy, and generate
something else out of is, just as a composer is entitled to generate music out
of his source codes: music notes, musical notation, chords, staffs, clefs,
orchestration samples etc.. etc... . A song may be copyrighted by the editor
and may be protected by authors right. That doesn't prevent me to use A, a,
B, c , C, c etc etc in songs and/or compositions of my own.





>
> Besides this discussion is not about patents, it's about copyrighted
> material - an entirely different discussion. Unfortunately you seem to
> lack the understanding of those terms.
>

No, the discussion is about patents. Programs generated from source code(s)
can be copyrighted. Quite a different issue.



>
> That's not what I'm saying. You were saying that as long as noone is
> brought to court and convicted, anything is legal and OK. It is not.

If your esteem is something is illegal, you're free to go to court. Bottom
line: nobody here has stolen anything. If you claim to know otherwise, you're
free to go court.


>
> You are talking as if the quesiton 'is this stolen stuff or not' is
> still open, which it isn't. Every hard-core OS/2 developer I know that
> has looked at this thing comes to the same conclusion within 1 minute.
>

That's a good example of jumping to conclusions and hear saying. Won't stand
in court.


>
> I am guilty of one crime, you are guilty of another (supporting the
> distribution of stolen goods),

Go to court please put your evidence onto table.


>
> I have come to realize. I apologise for assuming everyone knows.
> However now that this knowledge is out, everyone should turn their
> back on the osFree project. Continuing to support it while knowing
> what it really is (stolen property) is a crime in itself, and to be
> honest I am embarrassed by the fact that people are still talking
> positively about this effort.
>

I am embarrassed by your false accusations.



>
> > Seems your part of a secret brotherhood that thinks you should be
> > allowed to have the code but noone else.
> > I'd assume you are in some way better then the rest of us ?
>
> I'm not. And I would never speak against anyone for simply 'having'
> the sourcecode. As I said before, there is a pretty big difference
> between just 'having' it and actually USING it

Bullshit. Or you are entitled to have it, or you don't. If you are entitled to
have it, source code(s) that is, you are entitled to use it. That is in Europe
and Russia.


>
> > But its useless to discuss these things !!
>
> No it is not. It is absolutely 100% necessary to discuss these things
> - if the OS/2 community decides that this (osFree) is OK, I can no
> longer be a member of that community.
>

Then you should quit by now, as IBM definitely has pulled out the plug.



> I am interested in an OS OS/2, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! I am

It's the only way to do. A big thank you to IBM.


>
> on this list because I believe it needs to be pointed out, but it
> seems as if I'm speaking for deaf ears.
>

That's just because your arguments aren't valid.


--
Groeten uit Gent,

Kris

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:14 pm
by admin
#182 From: "drittervonfuenf" <3rdof5@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:10 pm
Subject: Re: My take on this.. drittervonfuenf
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


> Again, it's not all over the World, it's only in the USA and Japan
if we are
> speaking of patent rights. Maybe YOU are speaking about something
else, but WE
> are speaking about source codes. Source codes can't be patented in
Russia and
> Europe, that's how it is, period. Programs generated from source
codes can be
> copyrighted, but that's quite another matter.
> So, whether you like it or not, we are free to examine the source
codes. I am
> entitled to disassemble the os2 kernel of my Warp 4 copy, and generate
> something else out of is, just as a composer is entitled to generate
music out
> of his source codes: music notes, musical notation, chords, staffs,
clefs,
> orchestration samples etc.. etc... . A song may be copyrighted by
the editor
> and may be protected by authors right. That doesn't prevent me to
use A, a,
> B, c , C, c etc etc in songs and/or compositions of my own.

You don't have a clue what you are taking about.
If you take more than 3 chords outof a someone elses
pice of music, you need to have his permission and you have to pay
royalties as well.
As for Sourcecode, you are not allowd to reverse engineer in europe
just for the fun of it.
There is only one case where you are allowed to do so
and that is interoperability. And finally you don't
need patents to protect source code. It is an interlectual property
like a book/song when it has reached a certain level.And thus
protected by the same laws, and yes I talk about europe here again.
So stop posting this BS here.

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:15 pm
by admin
#183 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this, may contain some flaming mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:12:38 -0000, ltning99 wrote:

>> Did you know that anyone can use/build a patented thing as long
>> as you dont make any money out of it.
>
>Tell that to all the free software developers that have been jailed or
>prosecuted for their development efforts, all over the world.
>
Give me an example where an opensource free project has been
jailed for using a patent.

>Besides this discussion is not about patents, it's about copyrighted
>material - an entirely different discussion. Unfortunately you seem to
>lack the understanding of those terms.
>
Then you tell me how software copyright laws works in Europe.

>That's not what I'm saying. You were saying that as long as noone is
>brought to court and convicted, anything is legal and OK. It is not.
>
I said it was legal, OK is something quite different.

Also, who I'm I to judge. Any source out floating is IBMs source.
How do we know that the alledged source was not intentionally leaked ?

If you convince me there is a "source leak" the first thing I will do
is contact IBM and ask what they think.

Now, I uploaded a file I got from the TPE developers to hobbes yesterday.
It was a disassembly of the resource.sys driver. Is this a smokescreen
or is it they way they did (at least) parts of the distro ?

I'm unable to read through that kind of assembler file but what I could
tell from looking at it it does contain changes/fixes.

This only confuses me more (sigh :<).

>You are talking as if the quesiton 'is this stolen stuff or not' is
>still open, which it isn't. Every hard-core OS/2 developer I know that
>has looked at this thing comes to the same conclusion within 1 minute.
>
Ah, nice to see you are 100%.
Then why has not IBM striked down hard on it ?

Heres a hypotetical question to you,
Lets say a "source leak" of some kind went to court and the court ruled it to be
legal.
Developer lost and the source would be open for anyone to do what they want.

You would still refuse to have anything to do with it since your hands would get
dirty ?

>> Also, according to your statement above it hardly matters if you
>getof > in court since we cannot trust the courts. You did it you are
>guilty.
>
>I am guilty of one crime, you are guilty of another (supporting the
>distribution of stolen goods),
>
OK, you as a "hard-core OS/2 developer" is 100% that its "stolen goods"
and as that I should believe you.
Sure you have the source and you know.
Since I have some doubts could you please set them right for me then
********************************************************************************
******
Please upload the source to :
ftp://jma.dnsalias.com/osfree/dropzone
(its a noread dircetory and I dont log access to the ftp)
********************************************************************************
******

>and the 'developers' of osFree (assuming you are not one of them)
>are guilty of the IP stealing.
>
I'm sad (?) to say I'm not one of the developers. I would hardly get
such a complex thing to complile, but I assume you know.


>I'm not. And I would never speak against anyone for simply 'having'
>the sourcecode. As I said before, there is a pretty big difference
>between just 'having' it and actually USING it - and I'm sure whoever
>might decide to pursue this legally would know how to set their
>priorities; thus I am not very nervous.
>
Now you talk like a real theif.
Everyone has it so you cannot just nail me.

Either you condem ANY access of the source or your dont
condem any. Saying "I jush have it on my shelf" does NOT work.

It may be worse to sell it but that does not mean your actions would be legal.


>> But its useless to discuss these things !!
>
>No it is not. It is absolutely 100% necessary to discuss these things
>- if the OS/2 community decides that this (osFree) is OK, I can no
>longer be a member of that community.
>
OK, thats fair.
Prove to me and the rest of the people here that the distro is illegal
and I will condem it and continue with the thing osFree is.

That is - an opensource free OS/2 clone project.

There will always be questionable material in a project like this esp.
if (as you say) the sources are "out there".

But do you really mean I should scrap the idea just couse it took
a bad start ?



>> I want an opensource OS/2. Are you interested in helping in helping
>> out ?
>
>As far as my abilities go, yes.
>
Hmmm. "hard-core OS/2 developer" with access to peek into the OS/2
source. I'd assume your abilities would be far greater than mine


>> Either you have an interest in a OpenSource OS/2 clone and wants
>> to help or you should get off this list do do something else.
>
>I am interested in an OS OS/2, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! I am
>on this list because I believe it needs to be pointed out, but it
>seems as if I'm speaking for deaf ears.
>
Now you made your point.

Now prove to me and others the distro was made using elledged illegal stuff.
That would make me and some others to drop the distro and continue the
way I want it - open source free OS/2 clone.






Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:23 pm
by admin
#184 From: Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. krissteenhaut
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


drittervonfuenf schreef:

>
> You don't have a clue what you are taking about.
> If you take more than 3 chords outof a someone elses

You don't know what you are talking about. In Western music since Renaissance
(Monteverdi and predecessors) every composer is using the same major and major
scales + major and minor chords + according music notation . Every single
note, every single chord is re used, (reversed engineered if you like)
thousand times a day in the past and thousand times a day at this very moment.
If chords would be patented or author righted, nobody would be able to write
one single bar of music.

Incidentally 1, what is checked whether the "new composition" is "new" or
isn't, checked are a string of music notes. And that is checked by means of
the music notation. And the length of the strings differ from country to
country.

Incidentally 2, the score maybe copyrighted, as is usual the case. The score
is about $$$ for the editor, the author's rights are about $$$ for the
composers. Again quite different matters.


> need patents to protect source code. It is an interlectual property

"Intellectual property" isn't a feature in European legislation. You can't go
to court here with complaints like that.

>
> like a book/song when it has reached a certain level.And thus
> protected by the same laws, and yes I talk about europe here again.

"reached a certain level" ??? Talking about BS. <G>


--
Groeten uit Gent,

Kris

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:24 pm
by admin
#185 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. Dont accuse Kris for this ! mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:10:16 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:

>
>> Again, it's not all over the World, it's only in the USA and Japan
>if we are
>> speaking of patent rights. Maybe YOU are speaking about something
>else, but WE
>> are speaking about source codes. Source codes can't be patented in
>Russia and
>> Europe, that's how it is, period. Programs generated from source
>codes can be
>> copyrighted, but that's quite another matter.
>> So, whether you like it or not, we are free to examine the source
>codes. I am
>> entitled to disassemble the os2 kernel of my Warp 4 copy, and generate
>> something else out of is, just as a composer is entitled to generate
>music out
>> of his source codes: music notes, musical notation, chords, staffs,
>clefs,
>> orchestration samples etc.. etc... . A song may be copyrighted by
>the editor
>> and may be protected by authors right. That doesn't prevent me to
>use A, a,
>> B, c , C, c etc etc in songs and/or compositions of my own.
>
>You don't have a clue what you are taking about.
>If you take more than 3 chords outof a someone elses
>pice of music, you need to have his permission and you have to pay
>royalties as well.
>
You will have to acnowledge the compositour to perform it in public and
pay royalties *if* you make money of it.

Have you ever seen writings done by students in the university, they
are full of text written by somone else. Look at articles written by
journalists.

As long as you say who it is you commented/copied and dont make
any money out of it its perfectly legal.

Its the same with music, I can perform someones piece without any
problems as long as a a) say who done it and b) pay royalties *if*
I make any money of it.

>As for Sourcecode, you are not allowd to reverse engineer in europe
>just for the fun of it.
>
He said "disassemble" and that may not be the same as "reverse engineer"

--Disassemble
You are allowed to do just that !

Dont believe what you read at the back of a Windows shrinkwrap box,
its plainly not legal (in europe atleast) for them to state whay they do.

There is one difference, if you sign a written agreement that you will
not disassemble the product then you cannot do it but have you ??


>There is only one case where you are allowed to do so and that is
interoperability.
??

>And finally you don't need patents to protect source code. It is an
>interlectual property like a book/song when it has reached a certain level.
>And thus protected by the same laws, and yes I talk about europe here again.
>So stop posting this BS here.
>
DO NOT ACCUSE Kris for posting BS !

You may not agree with his stand on using "leaked source" but dont
say he is wrong on legal matters unless you are able to prove it.




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:29 pm
by admin
#186 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:59 pm
Subject: My take etc. etc. STOP THIS criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Hi all,

please STOP this thread.
It adds nothing but flames.
We're here to work, not to talk.
If someone don't want to work, then please unsubscribe.

And please: Carsten made it evident. If you still don't see the pattern,
then you're either blind or biased.

Bye

Cris

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:30 pm
by admin
#187 From: "Oliver Stein" <ostein@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:13 pm
Subject: OT:: Infrared stuff O_Stein
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


John,

I know it's off topic, but maybe there's more people who care, so here goes...

>After he quit IBM the drivers needed for this (IR drivers) were released by IBM
US and
>they no longer works on my ThinkPad (.

The IBM drivers on SW Choice work well, you just have to give the IOport and IRQ
information
to the base driver. The Autodetect code was removed since it worked only on a
few
thinkpads...
read the documentation, it's all in there
Also, people should test these drivers on non-IBM hardware and report bugs via
PMR's...
That was in fact the main reason for making the drivers part of the IBM
maintained OS/2
code...

>The old drivers he sent me still works so I can live with it, thanks for the
app Oliver :
-))
>Hope you will find time to enhance it even more !

The app is difficult for me to "finish" since there seem to be 1,000 differences
in the
way
the phonebook and SMS API's are implemented, even though there's an ETSI
standard for
it...
With every new phone I support, something else breaks... And you can only own
so many
GSM phones ...

Regards / Mit freundlichen GrьЯen,
Oliver Stein
InnoTek Systemberatung GmbH

InnoTek at the CeBIT fair (March 13-20, 2002, Hannover, Germany):
Hall 4, booth A04 (IBM Partner booth), demo point D.03

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.innotek.de

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:33 pm
by admin
#188 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: osFree/CMD mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:10:52 +0100, Herwig Bauernfeind wrote:

>> >JMA schrieb:
>> >> Are you able to sign up for developing an app ?
>> >No, sorry, I don't speak C, only REXX and (a little) Pascal.
>> How about dooing some HTML pages for the site on os2world.com ??
>
>Sorry, I don't speak HTML either (I wish I would).
>I can create .INF style manuals and I could paint icons, create REXX scripts.
>Not too useful by now...
>But if required, I 'll be listening on the list.
>
I would not say that.

As far as I know there are several IPF2HTML tools and if you want to help
using a HTML GUI tool will work as good (for example Mozilla).

If you feel you have the time and want to help please contact
webmaster@... and offer your services.




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:36 pm
by admin
#189 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: new edition? mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:36:37 +0300 (MST), Konstantin Okounkov wrote:

>I've hear about new edition osFree. It's a joke or right info?
>
???

I posted the first sourcecode I got from the TPE developers on hobbes
yesterday. Other than that I dont know what these guys are up to.




Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================

Re: Part 7

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:37 pm
by admin
#190 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: license issues (GPL or not) mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:49:29 -0000, poldi42 wrote:

>hi all,
>
>while this will seem a bit early, you not having produced something
>yet, I strongly recommend to settle on a sensible license for a
>potential "osfree" in short time.
>
>please don't get washed away by the glory of "pure" open source like a
>lot Linux-projects. while I think that all _parts_ of this project
>should indeed be open, it will be to the greater benefit of both sides
>if you allow companies to build something commercial on top of it,
>even without them sharing their corporate secrets.
>
>while I don't know a lot on this matter, the _L_GPL comes to mind as
>something perhaps suitable. Mozilla has something like this as well AFAIK.
>
I must agree with you, we should not stop comercial use of whatever gets
written unless we really have to (GNU tools etc.).

Could you please look at the existing licences and tell us what one seems
to suit us best. Then lets use that on any code we write !





Sincerely

JMA
Development and Consulting

John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================