Author Topic: New kernel  (Read 39326 times)

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #75 on: 2009.05.03, 14:21:48 »
From my point of view, Mensys position is clear: "this guys must work for us for free and give us all, what they done" ;) And copyrights only is a good shield for main idea ;)
And as far as i know, no one is specially hide something from Mensys ;) - this effect is result of long term holy war between Eugene Gorbunov and maintainer of Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums ;)

In that respect Mensys does not want something for free. If something is done properly and in a legal sense. Then Mensys pays for it. Infact I would hire the OS/4 team if its legal.

We want all for free ?  look at this presentation I gave at Warpstock 2008 ?

http://wse2008.warpevents.eu/uploads/tx_wseevents/wse2008_all08_ecomstation_2.0_and_beyond.pdf

Page 5. We hire Pasha to work on ACPI. Is ACPI performing we would like it to work, not yet. But its a very complex project. And we have hired more developers on a project basis.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

Pete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #76 on: 2009.05.03, 14:24:50 »
Hi

Next version has arrived.

ftp://Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/os2krnlSVN1313.zip


Sadly no change with regard to accessing UDF formatted DVD+RW discs.


Regards

Pete

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #77 on: 2009.05.03, 14:47:11 »
I agree with lewhoo  - OS/2 community definitely  would benefit from this kernel.
And that is why it is better to support OS/4 Team rather than criticize.

Rwklein, once (#62) I have already asked about your suggestions - how you see it should be - unfortunately, there was no answer.

It looks like you really have something in your mind but you don't want to share it.
Please, advise what is illegal in OS/4 kernel:
- presence of OS/4 copyright
- distribution of patched kernel
- etc.

It's a pity, but from your posts it  is absolutely unclear what you consider illegal. I think OS/4 team will appreciate all your suggestions.

From my point of view, for example, it should not be a big deal for them to remove the copyright string or distribute a not patched kernel but a software to patch the original one.

At the same time I would not want to believe walking_x, who said that Mensys might have some hidden motifs.


I would really like to support this kernel. But when it comes to copyright law in Western Europe and the United States. The kernel is indeed a violation of the law because the remove/ added the copyright statement of IBM. But they pay no royalties to IBM even. Mensys and Serenity Systems do so.

Second distributing the kernel in such a fashion with patches in it is also a violation of the law.
A patch as win32k.sys does from a legal point of view is clean.

If the community would this kernel to be of us it needs to be legal. Otherwhise it useful for private usage.
Guess why Mensys did not include MP3 support and other video codecs. Everything that is included in eComStation is licensed from vendors or in depth research has been done to make certain no intellectually rights property where violated.
Including the OS/4 kernel in the eComStation distribution would do so.

When it comes to working with the community Mensys and Serenity Systems try to there best to do so. And eComStation has always been a community/company effort. With Mensys/Serenity systems investing money. For example we hired a developer for 20.000 Dollars who is ex IBM to debug UNIAUD. Paul Smedley can confirm that the developer Richard Jerant removed bugs that would have been difficult to find by other people. Mensys will pay a developer to get AHCI support to eComStation.
We pay for ACPI support, we pay for Flash development and the Open Office port.  We run the VOICE mailing lists, provide Paul Smedley with FTP space for his software, CVS netlabs runs on our server. We work with Netlabs

Mensys people like me and Joachim have always been closely involved with the community like me doing www.warpweekend.com and involved with Warpstock and many other items we sponsor and infrastructure we provide.
I'm just listing some of these things because I know very well the importance of the community. We need the community and some the work the community needs us. (If you want more details I can explain why the community needs us.)
So it goes both ways in call kinds of ways.

The comment I have on the kernel in my view is 100% justified since its illegal (I just pointed out why) and we could support the developers but we do not and can not endorse illegal software.

Roderick Klein
Mensys




lewhoo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #78 on: 2009.05.03, 17:51:51 »
So... can Mensys help to make OS/4 kernel legal? As, being no developer, I understand, it shouldn't be that difficult: no copyright violations, in-memory patching. It would be nice to see one day, that Mensys and OS/4 team cooperation resulted in legal, good new kernel :)

walking_x

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #79 on: 2009.05.03, 18:24:21 »
Yes, I am understand legal/formal reasons, but another side look - OS/2 story is a story of child, who killed by own parent. May be, not by IBM itself, but with help of some .... like Lou Gerstner or any other "big chief". Kernel story is a good demonstration too (even Mensys can`t get sources).
In-memory patching is "legal", but bad idea ;) 1) it forbids original IBM os2ldr, 2) it is not easy to find memory for patch file on boot ;)
« Last Edit: 2009.05.03, 18:39:29 by walking_x »

AAA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #80 on: 2009.05.03, 19:20:08 »

...The kernel is indeed a violation of the law because the remove/ added the copyright statement of IBM...

...Second distributing the kernel in such a fashion with patches in it is also a violation of the law...


Coming back to OS/4 kernel, if I understood you correctly, they have to remove OS/4 copyright and distribute a not patched kernel but a software to patch the original kernel, right?

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #81 on: 2009.05.03, 20:09:01 »
Yes, I am understand legal/formal reasons, but another side look - OS/2 story is a story of child, who killed by own parent. May be, not by IBM itself, but with help of some .... like Lou Gerstner or any other "big chief". Kernel story is a good demonstration too (even Mensys can`t get sources).
In-memory patching is "legal", but bad idea ;) 1) it forbids original IBM os2ldr, 2) it is not easy to find memory for patch file on boot ;)


If you dig back to OS/2 and what I all did on the platform and MMOS/2 with other people I have also invested a few years of live to it. Sometimes upto 120 hours a week, during week and weekends and nights. OS/2 has a history with IBM and it went the way it went. OS/2 is business for IBM and it has partly gone the way because of certain things that happened...

So there is a harsh side to the story of how OS/2 has lived its live so far. As I typed before a lot (not everything) can be fixed without kernel sources. I have talked to a lot of people about this, experts like Daniela. And kernel sources are handy but there are plenty of ways around current kernel problems. I wrote that before! Look what we did to eComStation over the past 8 years. I wish it would have all gone faster instead of so slow. But it was all done with kernel source code!

And more is possible! If you want to keep OS/2 alive I hope we can do it in the form of eComStation.  IBM has the copyright on OS/2 and we can buy licenses. Hence why we can still sell it to companies that need it.

If this new OS/4 kernel would just sit in a legal corner the way its now we can not even *start* consider to use it.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #82 on: 2009.05.03, 20:12:29 »
So... can Mensys help to make OS/4 kernel legal? As, being no developer, I understand, it shouldn't be that difficult: no copyright violations, in-memory patching. It would be nice to see one day, that Mensys and OS/4 team cooperation resulted in legal, good new kernel :)

I still don't have a clear understanding of who Team/OS/4 is. And I have some questions in there directions how they did certain things. Mensys/Serenity Systems has a business relationship with IBM and our private users and companies. The legal aspect is a very important  one of that relationship with our customers and with IBM.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #83 on: 2009.05.03, 20:16:27 »

...The kernel is indeed a violation of the law because the remove/ added the copyright statement of IBM...

...Second distributing the kernel in such a fashion with patches in it is also a violation of the law...


Coming back to OS/4 kernel, if I understood you correctly, they have to remove OS/4 copyright and distribute a not patched kernel but a software to patch the original kernel, right?


Who owns the intellectual rights to OS/2 and hence the OS/4 kernel. That is IBM not OS/4 team.  Well take a look up close at the source code of the WIN32K.SYS driver. I just tried to find it. The code for ODIN must be somewhere with the WIN32K.SYS driver from Knut. Thats one way of doing certain updates to the kernel.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

AAA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #84 on: 2009.05.03, 20:47:52 »

Who owns the intellectual rights to OS/2 and hence the OS/4 kernel. That is IBM not OS/4 team.  Well take a look up close at the source code of the WIN32K.SYS driver. I just tried to find it. The code for ODIN must be somewhere with the WIN32K.SYS driver from Knut. Thats one way of doing certain updates to the kernel.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

I have never met that OS/4 team has ever declared any rights to OS/2 kernel. Of course, it is the intellectual property of IBM. Moreover, in the documentation that goes with the kernel from OS/4 team it is clearly stated : You can use this packet only having valid license to run OS2KRNL.

At the same time, I have to note that you keep saying that it is illegal and continue to ignore my repeated question what exactly is illegal.

Here I go trying to ask once again: if OS/4 distributes a software to do the patching of the original and not an already patched kernel, will this take the legal issue off?

If you don't give clear answers now, I will have to consider all your declarations about illegality as such that have no grounds.

abwillis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #85 on: 2009.05.03, 21:26:00 »
Who owns the intellectual rights to OS/2 and hence the OS/4 kernel. That is IBM not OS/4 team.  Well take a look up close at the source code of the WIN32K.SYS driver. I just tried to find it. The code for ODIN must be somewhere with the WIN32K.SYS driver from Knut. Thats one way of doing certain updates to the kernel.

Roderick Klein
Mensys
One piece that win32k.sys already can patch is allowing DLL files to not be bound by the 8.3 naming convention. 

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #86 on: 2009.05.03, 23:34:38 »

Who owns the intellectual rights to OS/2 and hence the OS/4 kernel. That is IBM not OS/4 team.  Well take a look up close at the source code of the WIN32K.SYS driver. I just tried to find it. The code for ODIN must be somewhere with the WIN32K.SYS driver from Knut. Thats one way of doing certain updates to the kernel.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

I have never met that OS/4 team has ever declared any rights to OS/2 kernel. Of course, it is the intellectual property of IBM. Moreover, in the documentation that goes with the kernel from OS/4 team it is clearly stated : You can use this packet only having valid license to run OS2KRNL.

At the same time, I have to note that you keep saying that it is illegal and continue to ignore my repeated question what exactly is illegal.

Here I go trying to ask once again: if OS/4 distributes a software to do the patching of the original and not an already patched kernel, will this take the legal issue off?

If you don't give clear answers now, I will have to consider all your declarations about illegality as such that have no grounds.

From my point of view I have given pretty clear answers to your answers. I don't think you understand strictly how copyright works ? If you place a copyright on piece of software or music  you also have certain legal rights to defend this copyright.
Its clear the OS/4 team has not developed the kernel for 100%. I have asked 2 people who looked at it and its clearly to a large degree its a patched IBM kernel code.  Hence that they may not intend to do it in that fashion but by putting a copyright claim on it for OS/4 Team 2008. Is clearly a violation of international copyright laws.

So to mention that you should have a valid license to run the OS2krnl  in the readme is like saying. He here is a re-mix of a house CD, I Roderick put the copyright on it. But I put a note on it. "If you have a purchased a copy of the CD of this artist its still oke".

IBM has never given permission to sub-license the OS/4 kernel and modify it to such a large extend. As to the patching I did not fully answer that question but did answer indirectly. That WIN32K.SYS answer I gave. An executable that the would send out to allow people to patch the kernel on there own would be less illegal that is certainly the case. But still a bit on a slippery slope.

What I know is that WIN32K.SYS method (patching in memory) (as Andy Willes explains) has the least to none of the technicall problems. A patch tool to patch the kernel on your private hard disc, don't know would need todo more research.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

walking_x

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #87 on: 2009.05.04, 13:34:30 »
What I know is that WIN32K.SYS method (patching in memory) (as Andy Willes explains) has the least to none of the technicall problems.
This method is suitable only for small, second boot phase patches.
How you can patch kernel from driver to show another (vesa) boot logo?

rwklein

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #88 on: 2009.05.04, 14:13:42 »
What I know is that WIN32K.SYS method (patching in memory) (as Andy Willes explains) has the least to none of the technicall problems.
This method is suitable only for small, second boot phase patches.
How you can patch kernel from driver to show another (vesa) boot logo?

I never stated that the WIN32K.SYS patching method is a sollution for all. But the point is how to keep the current project legal ?

Roderick Klein
Mensys

Pete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
    • View Profile
Re: New kernel
« Reply #89 on: 2009.05.04, 14:58:50 »
Hi Roderick

What is the legal difference between the os4 kernel and the kernels produced by the acpi developers?

Regards

Pete