Submitted by “During his visit to the school, President Medvedev spoke with the school’s students, including [ReactOS’] Marat Karatov. Marat made a short presentation of the latest build of ReactOS, including system boot up and running a few Windows-compatible applications. During conversation with the president, Marat said that the OS was ready approximately for 80% of real world usage and that roughly one million euros would be needed to complete its development within a year. ‘This is an interesting project indeed‘, was President Medvedev’s response.”
Putin would have been the right person. He is so rich 1 million is probably nothing he spends a lot of time thinking about.
Let’s hope Dmitry tells Boris about it the next time he has to present his report, but I guess he will forget 🙁
What exactly is “80% of real world usage”?
I’ve been following ReactOS for a few years now and love what the devs are doing, but it really didn’t feel “80% complete” the last time I used it.
However for arguments sake: even if those arbitrary figures were accurate, the last few percentage of usability usually take the largest percentage of time to develop. So I really don’t think 52 weeks is long enough to make this thing production ready.
Edited 2011-09-12 22:17 UTC
Form the article, it seemed as if a high schooler was the one who said it. I’m not bashing the youth, but they aren’t the best at estimating project times or costs. Which in the case of Linux, was a very, very good thing
What!?!?!? Medvedev is a manager while Putin is a spy. Medvedev was the chairman of Gazprom, he has enough money in his account…
The question is not “who was”, but “who is”
Question is “Where’s my money Lebowski?!?!?”
In Soviet Russia investors own you.
So it’s just like everywhere else?
I was thinking the same, but it was the obligatory joke.
In Russia, system operates you.
It’s incredible to see that some one as important as Medvedev now knows about ReactOS, a hobby O.S. and it’s incredible also to see what could be the consequences of a donation from a millionaire to such a project… A free win32 O.S. given away to the whole world…And legally 🙂
‘In Soviet Russia’ is one of the dumbest memes
Actually, was it the first internet meme? I know I saw it long before the word meme was repurposed for the internet.
It is from before the internet, but still the internet made a meme out of it, and it it’s pretty dumb
I don’t think it can properly be called an “Internet meme” at all – I have not noticed an upswing in the use of ‘In Soviet Russia’ jokes due to the internet, except in isolated cases like the fact that it became the thing to do on Slashdot for a while. It was always the sort of thing that spread virally from person to person and back again, in gentle waves.
Maybe it’s like that locally to you, however I strongly suspect that “In Soviet Russia” joke was, pre-Internet, also fairly local (mostly to your place?)
But the internet and its memes are a much more, well, global thing. “In Soviet Russia” also most likely became much more widespread that way (I’m certain it wasn’t really present at my place, even now that form is well-known mostly only to English capable internet-regulars; sure, there were tons of jokes and cabarets about the Soviets and our regime – “here” being back then a Comecon, Warsaw Pact country – but this particular form was absent)
Edited 2011-09-14 13:07 UTC
Internet is more than 40 years old so I doubt its older.
The origins go back 40+ years. But not only it can be called the Internet proper maybe for around 30; it was also a fairly niche thing for most of that time, not really impacting ~popular culture.
What we call “internet memes” came only with popularisation of the network in the 90s; “before the internet” in ~popular culture also referring to times before those. And “In Soviet Russia” comes mostly from 80s comedy act…
Correct, but since common use of the internet didn’t really happen until the early 90’s, this meme is probably older in spoken form than the common internet usage of it.
A large part of AMD’s success seems to be due to compatibility with the existing platform norm. ReactOS and Wine could potentially be as successful as AMD, if they only had the resources. Somehow being able to turn a profit would help; if they could directly work with fortune 500 companies and governments, and give them new features for less than Microsoft demands, maybe they’d stand a chance.
I know it is a long shot. Lobbyists, the old boys’ club, etc.
I’d be eternally grateful to Russia if they’d pick up this project and finally make ReactOS usable. And I say that even though I’m a Linux user and have no intention of changing operating systems. Unfortunately there are just a few times when I really need Windows (like, for example, loading maps on my Garmin GPS, or updating a BIOS). Having ReactOS available for those few necessities would be a dream come true.
Undoubtedly, Microsoft would have a hissy fit if Russia does this. Their lawyers would roll out their thousands of software patents, the DMCA, plus “look and feel” trademarks. The American ambassador would demand a meeting with Putin to discuss the issue. The US embassy in Moscow would reveal its true function as official headquarters for the US Chamber of Commerce. And the Russians would laugh at them.
Edited 2011-09-13 02:24 UTC
ozonehole,
“I’d be eternally grateful to Russia if they’d pick up this project and finally make ReactOS usable.”
Same here. I took a look at ReactOS today. I agree with others that it doesn’t look 80% complete, but it looks extremely promising.
“Undoubtedly, Microsoft would have a hissy fit if Russia does this. Their lawyers would roll out their thousands of software patents, the DMCA, plus ‘look and feel’ trademarks.”
Well, I think they could make a genuine case that ReactOS might confuse consumers because it can pass for windows. This would be extremely dangerous for MS to admit though…imagine the attention ReactOS would receive if MS claimed consumers couldn’t tell it apart from windows.
As far as software patents, I agree it’s all BS. However there’s little doubt about it, ReactOS will necessarily infringe on many patents. As soon as they are commercially viable the lawsuits will start.
As for the DMCA, it’s not really applicable here is it? For one it is US law. For another, my understanding is that ReactOS is a completely new implementation with no copied code. The only possible copyright infringement angle I can think of is if ReactOS installs windows hardware drivers without a license for ReactOS. It’s not clear to me whether hardware manufacturers would care.
Edited 2011-09-13 03:41 UTC
ReactOS doesn’t install drivers, users do. If a hardware OEM writes a Windows driver for their hardware, and it happens to work on ReactOS as well, (1) why would the hardware OEM care, one way or the other, and (2) what on earth does this scenario have to do with Microsoft anyway?
What exactly would a license be required for?
lemur2,
“what on earth does this scenario have to do with Microsoft anyway?”
Nothing…?
“What exactly would a license be required for?”
It may be standard practice to ignore licenses, but drivers are software protected by copyright too. It would be within the rights of the manufacturer to restrict the use of their software to a specific platform.
No, it wouldn’t be.
1. It is not the hardware OEM’s platform. The hardware OEM cannot distribute permissions/restrictions pertaining to a platform that is not theirs.
2. Anyone who buys the hardware package buys the software license for the driver which goes with it. This would come under the heading of “implied license”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
3. The OEM can’t sell the hardware without the attentdant software, because if they did so they would be offering defective product for sale. Consumers could complain that hardware without any driver software at all was “unfit for purpose”.
4. In respect to the above, the hardware OEM cannot offer to Joe something in a package which they do not offer to Susan, regardless if Susan has a Windows license or not. Doing so would be a trade practice violation, it would come under either “product tying” or “refusal to deal”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal
At the very most, the hardware OEM could say that their product was “untested for ReactOS”, or they could say that their product was “recommended for use with Windows”. Something like that. That is about the worst they could do.
Edited 2011-09-13 06:40 UTC
But none of that applies under Russian General Law.
No Software Patents
No DMCA
etc
etc
etc
If you go to almost all of the Prospects on the outskirts of Moscow you can easily buy any bit of Microsoft Software for up to an order of magnitude less than it costs in the US/Europe. A lot of it is supplied under the counter by local MS agents. They are using the tried and tested method of getting people hooked on stuff. Free/cheap at first then full price later.
Yep that’s how it is in most poor countries. The downside of this is that it prevents the development of alternatives to Windows. Alternatives like Linux for instance. If the billions living in the poor countries couldn’t get their hands on pirated versions of Windows so easily they would be forced to adopt and develop for Linux. This would also lead to the development of a software industry in these poor countries catering to the local market.
And Bill knew this. That is why it was never enforced in those countries.
Nobody pays for Windows. Here people pay for a computer and they discharge their M$ tax with it. It’s really hard to own a computer/laptop and not owning a Windows copy. Being it Europe or North America.
Price is not the major reason to use free software today. It should also not be. It would be a sad state of the GNU/Linux world if all it could over would be “cheap”.
I think whoever moderated this comment down must have read it wrong, or more likely not read past the first two sentences. I wanted to mod it back up, but the time limit has passed.
I bought this system as an OS less system here in Canada a few years back to install Ubuntu Feisty on. Now on Lucid LTS. Never had a copy of Windows on it. It does have Wine though for a few odd Windows programs I use
lemur2,
I don’t believe that buying a hardware/software bundle voids the software license.
The hardware may be unfit for purpose under your OS without drivers, but then again the operating system is usually explicitly stated in the system requirements on the box.
Edit: I’m not trying to imply that all manufacturers care how we use their software. But there are realistic scenarios where the bundled software is not even written by the manufacturer – the software license isn’t void. IE DVD-ROM + DVD Playback software. There was a time when it wasn’t legal to play DVDs under linux at all because all the commercial software was written and licensed for windows.
Edited 2011-09-13 07:46 UTC
Who said that it did? When you buy the hardware, you automatically receive a valid license (i.e. permission) to use the hardware and software bundle that you purchased.
You can use the hardware for whatever purpose you like … it is now your property. The only restrictions you may face relate to re-sale of the hardware, whereupon it becomes your property no longer.
This is NOT in any way dependent on you having a Windows license. It can’t be, since a hardware OEM requiring such a thing would directly violate laws against “product tying”.
To require that a consumer must have another product from some other company is akin to a hardware store selling you a hammer and then insisting that you only use brand X nails. Sorry, but the original hardware vendor just doesn’t get that power. Go ahead and use brand Y nails to your heart’s content. Enjoy.
Recommendations. They CAN say that they recommend 1GB RAM for example, but they certainly cannot tell you what make of RAM chips to use, and if their hardware still works with only 512MB, they can’t tell you that you must buy another 512MB.
It is perfectly legal to play DVDs under Linux.
You use this library:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss
Do not confuse this libdvdcss software for Linux with DeCSS from Windows, since the libdvdcss library for Linux has never been challenged in court. It is not a copy of any other software, it does not violate copyright. It does not use “cracked keys” (While DeCSS uses a cracked DVD player key to perform authentication, libdvdcss uses a generated list of possible player keys.). It pre-dates the DMCA.
End users are licensed to run libdvdcss because libdvdcss has a GPL license.
It is perfectly legal to play legally-purchased DVDs on Linux. What law is being violated?
Are not DVDs meant to be played on DVD players? Have Linux users somehow not legally purchased the DVD and the player? Linux users have a license (the GPL in most cases) to run all the software required. Well then, enjoy!
Edited 2011-09-13 10:53 UTC
lemur2,
“Who said that it did? When you buy the hardware, you automatically receive a valid license (i.e. permission) to use the hardware and software bundle that you purchased.”
http://www.osnews.com/thread?489308
In this post, you state that software license agreements cannot restrict where/how the software is used. However it’s not all that uncommon. Apple does it, IBM does it, microsoft does it. I think this is common knowledge so I won’t cite any sources.
“It is perfectly legal to play legally-purchased DVDs on Linux. What law is being violated?”
Legal DVD playback required a license, for a long time non of these issued for linux software.
“Sorry, you also mentioned DVD-ROM software, I presume you mean for DVD burners?”
I know linux has DVD burning software, but I’m not sure how this relates to my post? I specifically said DVD-ROM.
You haven’t answered the question, I notice. “What law is being violated”? The fact that the DVD consortium claims that authorised software is required is merely a claim, it is not actually backed by law, not even the DMCA.
No-one signs any EULAs with the DVD consortium, so they cannot be bound by what the DVD consortium decrees from on high. Ordinary people are bound by the law, not by industry cartels wishes.
There was a case where a printer manufacturer tried to restrict what ink cartridges could be used by putting a weak “anti-circumvention” device in its own ink cartridges, and then sued an alternate ink cartridge maker under the DMCA for violating the “copy protection”.
The court ruled that “copy protection” was not the aim it was actually “restriction of competition”, and the printer maker was found to be guilty of abuse of the DMCA.
Strong parallels exist with the case of libdvdcss software required for playing DVDs on Linux. There is a copy of this library shipped with VLC, BTW, which is very widely used. If fact, I think it was VLC who wrote libdvdcss in the first place.
VLC is multi-platform, and it has got to be one of the most widely-used programs capable of plying DVDs in use today (if not the most widely used).
http://www.hdvideoconverter-mac.com/multimedia-community.html
“The default distribution of VLC Media Player includes a large number of free decoding and encoding libraries, avoiding the need for finding/calibrating proprietary plugins. Many of VLC’s codecs are provided by the libavcodec library from the FFmpeg project, but it uses mainly its own muxer and demuxers. It also gained distinction as the first player to support playbacyk of encrypted DVDs on Linux by using the libdvdcss DVD decryption library.”
VLC is not for “copying DVDs”, it is simply a multimedia player, it does not enable “circumvention of copy protection”.
VLC is not “authorised DVD player software”, and yet it has never been challenged.
Edited 2011-09-13 23:32 UTC
That doesn’t mean it’s “safe” in the U.S. – as pointed out by Videolan’s own FAQ where they do not claim it is explicitly legal in the U.S.:
http://www.videolan.org/legal.html
“allows circumvention in some cases” is pretty vague and suggests that there is a legal minefield here just waiting to be tested.
Well, for me its fine. I live in Australia.
http://www.videolan.org/legal.html
“allows circumvention in some cases” is pretty vague and suggests that there is a legal minefield here just waiting to be tested. [/q]
Even in the US, VLC does not copy DVDs, it plays them.
Which makes one wonder why you’re questioning the legality of DVD playback on Linux in regards to the DMCA. It’s an absolutely pitiful law that only directly affects us in the U.S., and peripherally affects the rest of the world as our government and corporations attempt to bend it to their will.
And playback of DVDs isn’t even covered under the circumvention allowances specified by the US Copyright Office. They only cite a couple specific “fair use” cases where use of unauthorized “circumvention” can be used.
Since it’s not covered, one cannot draw any legal conclusions.
Edited 2011-09-14 02:25 UTC
I’m not questioning it, it is perfectly legal anywhere on the planet as far as I can see.
Agreed. The mere fact that corporations so very frequently try to use it to circumvent their obligations under competition and consumer protection laws is testament to just how pitiful the DMCA law really is.
After all, the law is supposed to be “for the people”, not “for the corporations”.
Playing a legally purchased DVD, which is offered for sale for the specific purpose of being played, on one’s legally purchased hardware and licensed software (VLC is GPL licensed) is somehow not “fair use”?
On what planet?
Running software which does not copy content is somehow considered to be “circumventing” copy protection for said content?
On what planet?
Are all Americans completely nuts? Perhaps so, apparently, on this very planet.
Edited 2011-09-14 02:50 UTC
You clearly haven’t been paying attention… This has always been the question. Playback makes a “copy” of the content in memory when it is played. It has always been said that you’re technically only authorized to play a DVD with an authorized player.
Just googling, I see this was even recently discussed last year:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/legal-dvd-playback-coming-linux
Last I heard, there was still no legal decision on whether one can/can’t legally play a DVD on Linux with libdvdcss.
In the absence of a test case, the default would surely be, in a country where the law is designed to protect the rights of citizens, that one could legally play a DVD on Linux with libdvdcss. There is no copying of content for the purposes of resale going on.
Note: Copying of content for personal use is OK … copyright law is designed to disallow unauthorised people from copying a work for the purposes of commercial resale.
So, once again I repeat, with emphasis, “what law is being broken”?
lemur2,
“You haven’t answered the question, I notice. ‘What law is being violated’? The fact that the DVD consortium claims that authorised software is required is merely a claim, it is not actually backed by law, not even the DMCA.”
Why should I answer it? This whole discussion of DMCA/patents/DVD burning/playback has nothing to do with the assertion I made.
I said a software copyright holder has can restrict the usage of their software in their license. If a user doesn’t agree to the terms, well then the use of the software without a license violates copyright law.
As for DVD licensing, this link may have some of the information you are after.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4043332/Taiwan-joins-Chines…
Three questions:
(1) at what point does a user of hardware they have legally purchased, installing the provided driver software on ReactOS, “agree to terms”?
(2) How can a EULA, agreed to or not, violate “implied license” laws?
(3) How can a hardware manufacturer legally include terms that violate laws against product tying?
You are implying that hardware OEMs are willing to break the competition laws three times over, all for the purpose of stopping someone using their hardware?
On what planet would that make sense?
Err, no. That was all about OEMs making DVDs and DVD players for sale to consumers. It has nothing to do with consumers playing a DVD they have legally purchased on a DVD drive hardware they have also legally purchased.
Edited 2011-09-14 01:37 UTC
lemur2,
“(1) at what point does a user of hardware they have legally purchased, installing the provided driver software on ReactOS, ‘agree to terms’?”
I can’t provide an answer which would satisfy all cases, but plenty of software performs a “click wrap” acknowledgement of a license in order to install. Now we all know a hacker could defeat this technically. However even in the case where the license merely accompanies the binaries without a click-wrap function (as in the old DOS/win31 days, and with OSS today), I still believe the courts would side with the copyright holder (as they should).
In other words, I doubt ignorance of the license is a valid legal basis for anyone to claim they are not subject to it.
“(2) How can a EULA, agreed to or not, violate ‘implied license’ laws?”
It is debatable whether an implied license can take precedent over an explicit one. However even if it does, the requirements are right there on the box. An “implied license” would mean that the explicit license must allow the user to install the software on systems fulfilling the requirements, nothing more is implied.
I have no experience with implied licenses, so if you can supply evidence that shows implied licenses overriding explicit ones, then so be it.
“3. The OEM can’t sell the hardware without the attentdant software, because if they did so they would be offering defective product for sale. Consumers could complain that hardware without any driver software at all was ‘unfit for purpose’.”
I already addressed this, but I can elaborate with examples.
macmillandictionary.com
“Fit for purpose – something that is fit for purpose is good enough to do the job it was designed to do”
I had purchased hardware (a UPS) which claimed support for “Linux”, but the binary driver failed to work on the embedded PPC Linux box I bought it for. When I pointed this out to them they did nothing to rectify it. I think in this case the device was unfit for purpose and I had a valid claim, since according to the product specs it should have worked for me.
(Presumably I should have been entitled to a refund, but I ended up re-purposing the UPS instead).
Another purchase I made was a USB/IDE dongle which worked under windows, but was extremely buggy under linux resulting in serious data errors. In this case, the dongle was unfit for my purposes under Linux. However the manufacturer never claimed it would work under Linux in the first place, so I would not have a legitimate claim.
“4. In respect to the above, the hardware OEM cannot offer to Joe something in a package which they do not offer to Susan, regardless if Susan has a Windows license or not. Doing so would be a trade practice violation, it would come under either ‘product tying’ or ‘refusal to deal’.”
My argument is really about the software license, not really the hardware.
Anyway a Toyota owner could purchase a component designed for a BMW, but if it doesn’t work due to physical/firmware incompatibilities, what does this change? There is no reasonable expectation for a component designed to work on a BMW to also work on a Toyota, even if in theory it should.
The analogy may be inexact, but I hope you get my point.
Edited 2011-09-14 03:03 UTC
More to the point would be the question “how can an explicit license include terms which break consumer protection laws”?
The answer would be “they can’t”. An OEM merely writing some conditions on a EULA does not make said conditions legal, the OEM still has to obey the law.
The “implied license” laws say, in essence, that when you buy a piece of hardware, it becomes your property. As long as it remains your property, you have full property rights over it, you may use it however you wish. You have every permission that may be required to use it. You may even use completely contrary to the original maker’s intent, if you wish.
For example, if you buy a nail, instead of using it to join together two pieces of wood, you can use it to hang a picture if you want. Or you can use it as the core of an electromagnet by winding some turns of insulated wire around it and passing a direct current through the wire.
It is your nail, fill your boots. It doesn’t matter one teeny tiny bit what the maker of the nail writes on the packet about how said nails are recommended to be used.
Edited 2011-09-14 03:26 UTC
lemur2,
So we are in agreement with the other 3 items, good.
“More to the point would be the question ‘how can an explicit license include terms which break consumer protection laws’?”
Let me ask this, what are the consumer protection laws which require hard/software to work on systems not meeting the advertised requirements? Where are the consumer protection laws today protecting me from manufacturers who don’t supply linux drivers?
There is no law that requires an OEM to supply working drivers for every platform imaginable.
There is only a law that prevents and OEM from trying to require that the customer must use only a particular product of another company, or even of the same company.
The applicable consumer protection law is the law against product tying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29
When I buy a video card from nVidia, I want a video card, I don’t want Windows. Nvidia do not have any legal leg to stand on whatsoever to try to insist that I must have a Windows license. It is just not on. Illegal.
Edited 2011-09-14 04:53 UTC
lemur2,
“There is only a law that prevents and OEM from trying to require that the customer must use only a particular product of another company, or even of the same company.”
You’re still talking about the hardware. I’m only talking about the software license agreements.
Are you asserting that software licenses cannot impose restrictions on when/where/how the software is used?
Software (as in a full-blown desktop software application) is weird, because commercial software providers seem to be able to get away with selling just the permission to use the software, and not selling the software itself. It is more like a service than a good.
However, this doesn’t apply to hardware drivers, because the driver software is an essential part of the way that the hardware works, and the OEM is selling you a piece of hardware with certain advertised functionality.
The hardware OEM can probably get away with saying that the product is supplied only in a form that is guaranteed to work with another company’s product X. However, they cannot prevent you from buying their hardware and using it with some other company’s product Y, if you want to. If using it with product Y entails still using their supplied driver, then I can’t see how they can stop you from using it how you want to, since you bought and now actually own their hardware and associated property rights.
More to the point, perhaps, is that I can’t see how or why the hardware OEM would want to stop you, since you have already paid them for their hardware, and trying to stop you would be an illegal act for the hardware OEM.
Edited 2011-09-14 05:54 UTC
The DVD Consortium gives out specific DVD Player keys to individual companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-scrambling_system
“Player key
used for decrypting a disc key on a DVD; each DVD player manufacturer is allocated one of approximately 400 player keys to incorporate in its players.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss
“libdvdcss uses a generated list of possible player keys. If none of them works (for instance, when the DVD drive enforces region coding) a brute force algorithm is tried so the region code of a DVD is ignored”
libdvdcss/VLC software clearly uses a different method of decrypting DVDs to that which may (or may not be) patented by the DVD Consortium.
Your point is moot, since in using a clearly different method libdvdcss does not violate any possible patent held by the DVD Consortium (now known as the DVD Forum).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Consortium
lemur2,
“Err, no. That was all about OEMs making DVDs and DVD players for sale to consumers. It has nothing to do with consumers playing a DVD they have legally purchased on a DVD drive hardware they have also legally purchased.”
Do you believe that consumers are (legally) entitled to ignore software patents?
Do you believe that patent licenses for bundled software are (legally) transferable to third party software packages?
If both answers are no, do you acknowledge that free third party OSS will not have a patent license for the DVD playback technology?
Edit: what if I don’t actually have a DVD drive, and I’m just using OSS DVD software to playback from an image? Will my OSS player have a patent license?
Edited 2011-09-14 03:53 UTC
There are no software patents. A patent is awarded for a “method” which is implemented in a “specific machine”. Software is mathematics. Mathematica and scientific discoveries in general are not things which can be patented.
What does it matter? The software itself cannot embody a patent, because it does not exist on a specific machine. It does not pass the “machine or transformation” test, it is not an “invention”.
No-one has a patent license for DVD playback technology. Disk drives and audio/video codecs and everything else about DVD technology has copious prior art anyway.
No, because no such license is required or valid, according to the text of, and intent of, patent law.
lemur2,
“There are no software patents. A patent is awarded for a “method” which is implemented in a “specific machine”. Software is mathematics. Mathematica and scientific discoveries in general are not things which can be patented.”
Well that goes a long way in explaining the remaining differences.
It’s worth nothing however that many software patent holders have in fact won in court, and that the supreme court itself said that short of changes in law by congress, that software is patentable here (in the US).
… only where the software is embedded in a particular machine, and the whole machine constitutes the patented “invention”.
Even then, a patent protect a particular implementation, or “method” of achieving a goal. For exmaple, if I invent a new type of water pump, I might be able to get a patent for it if my invention is novel. This patent would not prevent someone else from inventing yet another, different, new type of water pump. The new inventor could also get a patent for their invention, just as I got one for mine even though many types of water pumps already exist.
I get a patent for my invention of a particular method of pumping water, embodied in my new water pump, I do not get a patent for the idea of pumping water.
So, in any event, libdvdcss/VLC clearly uses a different method of decrypting DVDs, not for the purposes of copying DVDs for resale but rather for the purposes of playing them.
Clearly, under any sane interpretation, libdvdcss/VLC does not violate coyright law, patent law nor the DMCA.
Edited 2011-09-14 05:33 UTC
lemur2,
i4i had XML patents and won in court against microsoft.
Unisys was notorious with LZH and went after numerous developers including Corel and Adobe, who settled by licensing it’s patents.
Tumbleweed Communications patented personalized URLs, and brought cases against Paypal, Yahoo, DST Systems, and others for personalized URLs. In some cases, the terms were not disclosed, however in other cases we know that TC wins a lump sum and royalty rights valued at $0.04 per personalized URL.
And there are plenty more. Just try to keep this legal backdrop in mind when you claim that software in the US is not patentable for reason X, Y, or Z.
VLC is not a product that’s sold for profit, so it won’t be challenged. The moment this changes, the Hounds of Hell will be unleashed upon them.
The problem is – and this is of course entirely opinion since it hasn’t been tested in court – it’s arguable that DVDs are only meant to be played on “licensed DVD players” where the developer of the player has paid for a license allowing their software (or hardware) to play DVDs.
IOW, you can only legally play a DVD on an authorized player, which libdvdcss is not.
The DMCA comes into play because any DVD playback software that isn’t licensed is considered a “circumvention” of the “effective copy protection” (you can argue about “effective” separately – but that’s what the MPAA believes).
The same library that allows dvd playback can be used to “rip” dvds to a non-encrypted video format – so obviously they would like to prevent that from happening. They want to make sure anything that can play a DVD is only being used for “licensed and authorized” purposes.
Sorry, you also mentioned DVD-ROM software, I presume you mean for DVD burners?
http://www.k3b.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K3b
Linux users are fully licensed to use k3b. Enjoy. Burn baby, burn.
GNOME/GTK users might prefer Brasero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasero_%28software%29
This whole discussion is moot anyway as ReactOS currently doesn’t support Windows drivers and has no plans to implement WDF (Vista / Win7’s driver model).
Granted they are working on a more basic NT driver model, but it’s far from complete (easily more than a years work there alone) and worst of all it’s already out of date so any new Windows drivers wouldn’t work anyway.
So i think copyright issues would be the least of your troubles if you’re hoping for cross-compatibility between ReactOS and Windows drivers
Laurence,
I thought I read they were going for compatibility with windows 2000 and the earlier windows driver model which predates WDF, no?
A (very quick) search popped up this from wikipedia: “other WDM drivers can be used as long as the driver does not call a non implemented Windows API.” So I do believe driver compatibility is a goal.
Anyways, I think most manufacturers would be happy to see their existing drivers working on reactos without modification.
Yeah, the NT driver model which I mentioned
WDM is a subset of NT driver model, so compatibility is theoretically possible. However that doesn’t change the fact that it’s far from complete and is already 2 generations of Windows behind.
Also this is all on ReactOS’s website:
http://www.reactos.org/en/dev_whitepaper.html
I don’t think they’ll care.
Most put very little effort in Linux drivers and desktop Linux (like it or loath it) is years ahead of ReactOS in terms of completeness, user base and developer interest. So I can’t really see why manufacturers would care any more about ReactOS.
Edited 2011-09-13 08:25 UTC
I think the key words are: “without modification”
I got that first time round – it doesn’t need reiterating. However I still don’t think they’ll care.
Nobody uses ReactOS as a primary desktop because it’s application compatibility is still pretty poor. Until that improves, most of the already limited user base are just going to stick this inside a VM. And even those that do put this on dedicated hardware, aren’t going to buy new gear specifically for this.
So hardware manufacturers are not going to make any money from hardware sales due to this OS for at least the foreseeable future; thus hardware manufacturers simply won’t care in the slightest about ReactOS regardless of modifications -or lack of- required.
I know this might sound pessimistic, but that’s just the impression I get seeming as many don’t even bother to put “Linux compatible” on their device packaging when there’s already fully functional Linux drivers out there. So why would they care about a market share that is still limited to the uber geeks?
No you are right, the manufacturers might not care.
But compatibility is definitely a really good way for an OS to gain users.
Whatever advantages an OS* might have without compatibility it is really hard to gain a large number of users.
* OS alone – not talking about hardware/software combination
Oh I completely agree. I’m was never arguing against driver compatibility. In fact quite the opposite, I think driver compatibility is the way forward (if not natively, then at least an optional wrapper for importing otherwise incompatible drivers).
I was just making the point that (in my opinion) the earlier commentator was wrong in his assumption that OEMs would be happy / care. The only people this would effect would be us ReactOS users – at least until the OS reaches critical mass (if that ever happens).
And the next question always is: what will Microsoft do when ReactOS reaches critical mass ?
Interesting question, isn’t it? ReactOS is not a copy of Microsoft software.
I will agree that ReactOS is in a slightly more precarious permission than Wine, since Wine is merely a two-way translation layer between the running Windows application executable and the underlying Linux kernel to provide to OS functionality. ReactOS, OTOH, is a functional replacement of Windows itself.
Still, it bears repeating … ReactOS is not a copy of Microsoft software.
Edited 2011-09-13 11:12 UTC
So I don’t know who are the ReactOS and Wine developers, so I don’t know what laws apply to them but:
What about the patents ?
One gets a patent for a “method” of doing something. Even then that method must be implemented in a “particular machine” so that it conforms to the “machine or transformation” test, one cannot patent pure software.
ReactOS and Wine are both pure software, they are distributed by their respective authors as a software package. There is no particular machine, and neither product conforms to the “machine or transformation” test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_test
Now when a particular person does install ReactOS or Wine on a particular machine, that machine and that individual using it may possibly be violating some obscure Microsoft patents somewhere. It is hardly worth Microsoft’s while going after individuals, however.
Wine obviously uses totally different methods to Windows to run Windows executables than Windows itself does, anyway, so I very, very much doubt that Wine has anything to worry about whatsoever.
ReactOS may possibly be a different story, but Microsoft won’t be able to go after ReactOS itself.
If you doubt this “machine or transformation” requirement, BTW, consider this: Microsoft have gone after TomTom, HTC, Barnes & Noble and similar manufacturers … all of whom put Linux into “particular devices”. Apple have gone after HTC ans Samsung, who have put Android into “particular devices”.
Hmmmm. Microsoft’s and Apple’s patent cases are about particular hardware devices being sold. Think about why this is so for a moment.
So it is possible ReactOS will never be sold preinstalled ?
Unless, for example, a patent agreement is made with Microsoft ?
That would seem to be a fair assumption. A vendor considering selling ReactOS pre-installed on a particular machine would probably be convinced by their lawyers that they faced too great a legal risk.
Likewise, AFAIK, Wine is not included in any pre-installed Linux machine that one can buy. Individuals can easily install it post purchase, but AFAIK it is never distributed pre-installed with a machine.
Edited 2011-09-13 12:04 UTC
Thank you for the information.
At least some other large entities, govs for example as is the case here, might care enough in larger picture…
ReactOS supports WDM drivers. In fact, some of the built-in drivers use WDM.
Got a source document to back this up?
I ask because their own white paper states it’s not completed:
http://www.reactos.org/en/dev_whitepaper.html
Why list as an aim if it’s a completed project?
[edit]
Ahhh just spotted you’re one of the ReactOS guys.
I’m guessing your white paper is out of date then if WDM compatibility has already been achieved?
Edited 2011-09-13 10:42 UTC
yeah sorry, I should have mentioned that.
Large parts of the info sections of website are out of date. Finding tech writers or getting devs to write is nigh on impossible…
Edited 2011-09-13 21:30 UTC
Why would the russian government care about american software patents? They aren’t valid in russia.
You can use FreeDOS to update the BIOS, however some mobo manufacturers (ASUS for example) have updater tools built in so all you need to do is load the BIOS device on any FAT formated device (inc removable media) then boot into the BIOS and update from there.
I have used Flashrom to great effect: http://flashrom.org/
And what else could he possibly say? he’s probobly not a techie guy and he is a politician in post-soviet regime place. He has the power to adopt that kind of stuff, but he’s a politician in the same time, so that looked more like “yeah, yeah, now go away”.
It’s one of the annoying things about democracies. We elect people based on a cult of personality. But when they get into office, their job description includes giving up any opinions or personality. We get the worst of both worlds.
In politicial language, ‘This is an interesting project indeed’ means ‘i don’t give it a damn’
True, but watching a demo of React has still got to be better than kissing a pig.
Only then the patent law suites will start I believe.
There are two possible ends to this story:
1. Money are not paid to project. ReactOS reaches 99% compatibility with WinXP by Y2015 (Y2020?) and if the will to complete the project doesn’t fade, the project gets compartible with previous Windows version in a couple of years.
2. Money are paid. Effectively of a million issued the project recieves a couple of hundreds of thousands (that’s the way it work in Russia). Governmental agency of youth (or ministry of information and communications) takes close control on a project. By Y2015 the project is completely screwed and f**ked up.
is that a foreign government like Russia or China, or even a big corporation like Google, hasn’t taken an interest in this already
Because it really isn’t worth the effort.
They are chasing API compatibility with a proprietary OS, that have 1000s of times the resource they do and hire some of the best programmers in the world.
Also it is essentially a knock off of what is already existing … and Microsoft are pretty cheap if you know the right people to talk to.
For example … Microsoft offer large discounts for Charities (most software companies offer charity discount … most of the time all you must do is ask them whether they will consider it and they will usually do BOGOF or better).
If you want Open Source … Linux and BSDs are a more mature product.
China has their own resources to manufacturer processors (which is not easy feat .. I was told in about 2003 that my university was one of the few places in the UK there were CPU fabs in the whole country), and Red Flag Linux I believe is already about.
Google wants everything via the Web … so tbh as long as you have a browser they don’t care.
Russia I don’t know .. because I don’t know much about their IT … but I know they are investing in Linux and probably forking something like Redhat.
So there is really no incentive IMHO.
Edited 2011-09-13 20:52 UTC
I can’t see how such a statement could be considered anything other than absurd, however it is intended. It’s been in development for over a decade, and it still has poor hardware support, zilcho security, and lacks all but the most basic operating system features.
ReactOS is not going anywhere. Not with a million euros, not with anything.