Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


jumper

KernelEx 4.5 Core Updates (4.5.2016.17)

Recommended Posts

A promise is not enough. One can promise to release the source code of a future version, but a version that is out now has no source code of which I am requesting. It is not a matter of promising, it is a requirement to release the sources to comply with the GNU GPLv2 for every build that is released.

Yoiu convinced me :yes:. I am pretty sure you have enough grounds to sue Jumper :w00t::ph34r:.

 

But seemingly Drugwash only tried to make you aware of current status of the thingy, answering your question, maybe he deserved not the lecture on GPL compliance and opportunity or using version control. :unsure: 

 

jaclaz 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But seemingly Drugwash only tried to make you aware of current status of the thingy, answering your question, maybe he deserved not the lecture on GPL compliance and opportunity or using version control. :unsure:

 

It was not a lecture, it was a plea. Like someone playing with gasoline, fireworks, and matches, not just for your own safety but of theirs also.

 

My current plan, once I finish relocating my possessions and can unpack my Windows 98 SE system to plug it in, is to attempt to add support for a manually installed Oracle Java 8 JDK if it is not already supported. Manual installation is simple, use 7-zip to extract the tools.zip from the x86 installer image, extract that tools.zip into a directory (such as C:\JDK8), then modify AUTOEXEC.BAT to set JAVA_HOME to that path and then PATH gets an added "%JAVAHOME%\bin", then run unpack200 on all of the files ending in *.PACK so that they become *.JAR. The JDK requires KERNERL32.DLL, MSVCR100.DLL, and PSAPI.DLL support.

 

 

Yoiu convinced me  :yes:. I am pretty sure you have enough grounds to sue Jumper  :w00t:  :ph34r:.

 

A lawsuit is only a last resort and it would be very costly for both sides, the end result being hatred, damaged personalities, and lots of cash lining lawyer pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDK8 working with .9 release and psapi.dll jumper posted (used to work with my psapi hack before that too). Current JDK9B60  also requires Kernel32 SetFileInformationByHandle  which can be set in kstub821 for now. I can run all apps I tested with either of those except for Geogebra which fails with both and with Java 7 too whereas it runs fine with Java 6, an OpenGL issue apparently. As a few java apps I use fairly regularly such as Pixelitor now requires Java 8 I've set Javaw.exe from JDK8 as the as the default  program for opening jar files.

 

I did not find it necessary to edit any other paths in autoexec.bat or the registry btw which most certainly all still point to my installed Java 6.

Edited by loblo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDK8 working with .9 release and psapi.dll jumper posted

 

If your other programs work then it is likely the Java compiler works also since it is written purely in Java.

 

--

 

My call for full sources and/or repository still stands however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the mean time, a couple of older intermediary versions (R3 and R5) with a few minor project fixes can be found at my repository here.

 

 

In which order are these applied and to which sources?

 

Jumper already promised some time ago a full diff package for the upcoming Release 10, while the original 4.5.2 sources can be found online.

 

A promise is not enough. One can promise to release the source code of a future version, but a version that is out now has no source code of which I am requesting. It is not a matter of promising, it is a requirement to release the sources to comply with the GNU GPLv2 for every build that is released.

 

Also, it would be best to not have a "diff" and instead release full sources as it reduces the liability of violations. It also makes it easier for others who want to contribute to more easily contribute without jumping through hoops of figuring out what gets extracted onto what in a specific order. Say if suddenly the locations of other sources such as SourceForge for 4.5.2 disappear and that the only source code available is in this topic. Although highly unlikely this event will occur it may still happen (other unlikely events have occurred but I will not go into that), those "diff"s are not enough. Full sources are also much simpler to create as you can just archive up your cleaned working copy, or if version control is used they can export archives straight from the repository.

 

Both R3 and R5 are full sources. I have added jumper's new/edited files to the original 4.5.2 and operated a few minor adjustments to the project files in order to compile the whole batch at once.

However I'm not very familiar with C/C++ and there may or may not be problems with that setup.

 

Jumper has taken on this task fairly recently and as far as I understand his setup is (or was) not yet completely functional. Releasing garbled sources would not help anyone so he said he would release only after cleaning them up and reaching a stable stage. I do agree that a full source package would be preferrable instead of a diff, but either way it should at least be a working version so personally I see no reason to force a source release. But then again I'm not an expert in legal matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My call for full sources and/or repository still stands however.

Seriously? It's not enough for you that someone has taken it upon themselves to continue this project, you have to come in here and start nitpicking about all the sources not being available? Be glad someone is willing to spend their time continuing to work on KernelEx in this day and time. And I certainly support jumper in the stance that releasing bugged versions and sources helps no one. He is under no obligation to spend his time on this project for you or anyone else - if it takes him some time to polish his current version and make the sources available, then that's his business and his alone.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My call for full sources and/or repository still stands however.

Seriously? It's not enough for you that someone has taken it upon themselves to continue this project, you have to come in here and start nitpicking about all the sources not being available? Be glad someone is willing to spend their time continuing to work on KernelEx in this day and time. And I certainly support jumper in the stance that releasing bugged versions and sources helps no one. He is under no obligation to spend his time on this project for you or anyone else - if it takes him some time to polish his current version and make the sources available, then that's his business and his alone.

 

 

You take my request as hostile, why?

 

As per the GNU GPLv2 it is fully within my rights to request the source code for Jumper's modified builds that have been released, if the source code is withheld then the law is violated. The GNU GPL is not something to be taken lightly or as a joke, large companies that failed to comply paid the price and like every law, it does not matter if you are broke and on the street or the CEO of a large company (although the more money you have the more lawyers you can afford, but even they might not be able to help you).

 

As per being glad, perhaps you are not seeing what being open source means. If the original developer of KernelEx never released his sources when he made any of his releases and interim builds, we would not be here discussing this today because there would be no source code and Jumper would not be continuing this project. I can reverse your statement and use it against you, you should be glad that I myself am willing to spend some time working on an extended KernelEx and I may even setup an automated build server which builds installers for KernelEx automatically whenever a new revision appears. Should you not be glad?

 

I am very willing to set all of this up, so then the next update to the topic one can just say "Go here and download build 12345", uploading separated sources would not be needed since it would be in a version controlled repository. However, in order for this to work efficiently there must be a repository where changes are made and it must be made publically available.

 

As per polishing, there is a difference between development and release. The development versions can be buggy and they could be broken, it is up to developers to fix the problems when it comes time to release. If you do not like developer oriented builds and sources then you should not use them and wait for more stable builds and sources. To more efficiently make KernelEx better, I require the most up to date source code (not having up to date sources is equivalent to fixing a car designed in 2015 using the manual of an older model from 1985). Using out of date sources potentially duplicates work and will cause more potential merge conflicts which will have to be fixed by the person with the latest sources, slowing him down, which is why the code would be best in version control on a public repository. All modern version control systems such as git, hg, and fossil support merging code automatically. They also permit other developers to more easily make and commit changes. There are tags to indicate which revisions are deemed stable of which normal users should use. So yes, the bugged source code and those bugged builds do help many people, they help the developers and allow them to help everyone.

 

The question then remains, do you want KernelEx to be better than it already is now, or will you let hatred get in the way? I desire to assist, not harm others. If you see someone drowning or lying injured on the side of the street, you do not let them die, you help them live.

 

My request for the source code is between me and Jumper, however anyone else may request the source code and it is their right to request it. Jumper is only one person, and I myself am only one person. However, combined we can be two people with the skills and the will to improve this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You take my request as hostile, why?

 

Because you sound hostile, simple as that. ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My call for full sources and/or repository still stands however.

Seriously? It's not enough for you that someone has taken it upon themselves to continue this project, you have to come in here and start nitpicking about all the sources not being available? Be glad someone is willing to spend their time continuing to work on KernelEx in this day and time. And I certainly support jumper in the stance that releasing bugged versions and sources helps no one. He is under no obligation to spend his time on this project for you or anyone else - if it takes him some time to polish his current version and make the sources available, then that's his business and his alone.

 

 

My request for the source code is between me and Jumper, however anyone else may request the source code and it is their right to request it. Jumper is only one person, and I myself am only one person. However, combined we can be two people with the skills and the will to improve this project.

 

Then why didn't you contacted Jumper via PM first to offer your help instead of coming here making request and legal threats ??

And what do you think are the chances now that Jumper even thinks about working with you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly support jumper in the stance that releasing bugged versions and sources helps no one. He is under no obligation to spend his time on this project for you or anyone else - if it takes him some time to polish his current version and make the sources available, then that's his business and his alone.

 

+1 ... and BTW thx to the wonderful people helping here all those projects! :thumbup

 

GhostlyDeath if you actually want to help, stop with your requirement and legal threats, and politely offer your assistance, ...it won't harm you   :whistle:

Edited by CharlesF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us all, please, have a little bit of patience until jumper comes in with the answers. No need for hostility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You take my request as hostile, why?

 

As per the GNU GPLv2 it is fully within my rights to request the source code for Jumper's modified builds that have been released, if the source code is withheld then the law is violated. The GNU GPL is not something to be taken lightly or as a joke, large companies that failed to comply paid the price and like every law, it does not matter if you are broke and on the street or the CEO of a large company (although the more money you have the more lawyers you can afford, but even they might not be able to help you).

Because of the manner in which you make your request. If you want to help with something you don't go around making demands or lecturing others and most certainly do not start throwing around talk of legal matters, no matter what your intent. There exists no intent here to violate any law, GPLv2 or otherwise. So if you really have "good" intentions and wish to contribute, I suggest you adjust your attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Jumper is not claiming ownership rights or controls over the mods, they are basically free speech on his part.

No trade secrets are involved and by offering "diff" files instead of full builds he isn't even copying anything.

He could have developed Libraries and Linkage files based on my proprietary and non-GPL DLLHOOK Program instead and even I would have no claim against him unless he actually distributed DLLHOOK itself.

So, no payment stub, no standing for a lawsuit.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Jumper is not claiming ownership rights or controls over the mods, they are basically free speech on his part.

No trade secrets are involved and by offering "diff" files instead of full builds he isn't even copying anything.

He could have developed Libraries and Linkage files based on my proprietary and non-GPL DLLHOOK Program instead and even I would have no claim against him unless he actually distributed DLLHOOK itself.

So, no payment stub, no standing for a lawsuit.

 

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea if you are. Also depends on the country you are in also, but there are international copyright laws which many countries have signed into law. However based on what you have said and prior evidence you can find as to the GPL and how it works (how it has been used in court battles in the US and internationally), taking such a stance would not be recommended.

 

The GPL is not public domain, it is copyrighted. And anything that is copyrighted can be stolen. Taking a GPL program and changing the source is the same as taking a song and modifying a few points of a waveform so it is different form the original. These are both derivative works and are not completely original.

 

Free speech is not public domain or a software license. Free speech just permits you to say whatever you want and not suffer the threat of the law. In some countries without free speech, saying the wrong thing will land you in jail (North Korea for example). Those countries you can probably write source code, but if they do, explain, or say anything that is against the law then they can be jailed (even tortured and executed).

 

Even if that copyrighted work is released for free with no price, you can still sue over it. People have sued over violations of the GPL for the source code they released for no price, and they have won. Copyrighted works have ownership, and the GPL is used for copyrighted works. Copyrighted software is licensed (GPL being a license), otherwise if it is not Public Domain then nothing can be done with the source code or the binaries that are built. So without a license (and not in the public domain) you essentially have software that only the owner of 100% of it can use. One also cannot change the license of source code unless the license permits it or they own 100% of it, the smallest portion that is 0.01% of the original stlll counts. Even Google has stolen GPLed code and they have been sued and are fighting said suits.

 

If you own a store and someone shoplifts a pack of gum and you catch them, you might let them back in and think "They only stole a pack of gum, who cares?". So pretty soon everyone is stealing your gum since you do not seem to care. But, sometimes gum is not enough. If you can steal gum without worry then why not steal the 2,000 USD TV on display instead?

 

He has also released source code of his builds, even partial code, it can very easily be deduced that it is based very much so in part of KernelEx. If you ran a diff between the sourceforge code which was released and the sources he released, you will see that much of the code is pretty much the same. He could have used your library, however if it is proprietary then he would not only violate your license and copyright, but that of the GPL since he does not own 100% of KernelEx. If he did however, the program would only violate your license but noone else would be able to use it since they would automatically violate the GPL.

 

However, there are better places to get information on the GPL than these forums, such as the GNU website and the FSF websites. If you want to really be sure, then purchase a lawyer to interpret the license for you.

 

EDIT: Some have stated that I should stop with my request for source code. As per the terms of the GNU GPLv2 I can make this request and it is my right to do so. I still await his response. If in the event he never does publish source code, then the binaries (with missing source code) would be best deleted as they are a legal liability for any of those who wish to distribute it (being GPLed, you may be asked for source code and if you fail to comply then you violate the GPL and may find yourself at the end of a lawsuit). The work done would have been lost and must be repeated again.

 

The GPL is "viral" for a reason.

Edited by GhostlyDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea if you are. Also depends on the country you are in also, but there are international copyright laws which many countries have signed into law. However based on what you have said and prior evidence you can find as to the GPL and how it works (how it has been used in court battles in the US and internationally), taking such a stance would not be recommended. Free speech is not public domain or a software license. Free speech just permits you to say whatever you want and not suffer the threat of the law. In some countries without free speech, saying the wrong thing will land you in jail (North Korea for example). Those countries you can probably write source code, but if they do, explain, or say anything that is against the law then they can be jailed (even tortured and executed).

Maybe not everywhere but here I think it applies.

North Korea is a well known exception to the rule.

The GPL is not public domain, it is copyrighted. And anything that is copyrighted can be stolen. Taking a GPL program and changing the source is the same as taking a song and modifying a few points of a waveform so it is different form the original. These are both derivative works and are not completely original.

Of course.

Even if that copyrighted work is released for free with no price, you can still sue over it. People have sued over violations of the GPL for the source code they released for no price, and they have won.

Name a case where the Code was released with no strings attached and not part of or used

in some other Code or Product.

Copyrighted works have ownership, and the GPL is used for copyrighted works. Copyrighted software is licensed (GPL being a license), otherwise if it is not Public Domain then nothing can be done with the source code or the binaries that are built. So without a license (and not in the public domain) you essentially have software that only the owner of 100% of it can use. One also cannot change the license of source code unless the license permits it or they own 100% of it, the smallest portion that is 0.01% of the original stlll counts. Even Google has stolen GPLed code and they have been sued and are fighting said suits.

Google uses their code in commercial products and claims ownership over the overall packages.

If you own a store and someone shoplifts a pack of gum and you catch them, you might let them back in and think "They only stole a pack of gum, who cares?". So pretty soon everyone is stealing your gum since you do not seem to care. But, sometimes gum is not enough. If you can steal gum without worry then why not steal the 2,000 USD TV on display instead?

We are not talking about chipping away at rights. We are talking about basic principles.

He has also released source code of his builds, even partial code, it can very easily be deduced that it is based very much so in part of KernelEx. If you ran a diff between the sourceforge code which was released and the sources he released, you will see that much of the code is pretty much the same.

Interesting that you are the one pressuring him to release "full" sources, containing the GPL

Code rather than "diff" files that do not.

He could have used your library, however if it is proprietary then he would not only violate your license and copyright, but that of the GPL since he does not own 100% of KernelEx. If he did however, the program would only violate your license but noone else would be able to use it since they would automatically violate the GPL.

Neither.

I said he would violate my Copyright if he distributed my DLLHOOK Program itself. Anyone can

write a package that calls my Program and distribute it without my consent but someone would

need to buy DLLHOOK from me for the Package to work.

Since DLLHOOK is independent of KernelEx, he could write routines to add to or replace KernelEx

functions without being subject to the GPL either.

However, there are better places to get information on the GPL than these forums, such as the GNU website and the FSF websites. If you want to really be sure, then purchase a lawyer to interpret the license for you.

It is not my problem.

EDIT: Some have stated that I should stop with my request for source code. As per the terms of the GNU GPLv2 I can make this request and it is my right to do so. I still await his response. If in the event he never does publish source code, then the binaries (with missing source code) would be best deleted as they are a legal liability for any of those who wish to distribute it (being GPLed, you may be asked for source code and if you fail to comply then you violate the GPL and may find yourself at the end of a lawsuit). The work done would have been lost and must be repeated again.

It is clearly a work in progress so technically it has not even been "released". He already stated

an intent to provide Source Code when he is done. Also he is free to provide it in a form of his

own choosing.

If he did not, someone who "distributes" it as part of some work could potentially have a problem, but simply hosting it is not. Also deleting virtually anything from the Internet is next to

impossible regardless of legality.

The GPL is "viral" for a reason.

"Viral" is right. Like many other kinds of "viruses" it has led to the death of a lot of businesses

that tried to embrace it. Demands like yours only make prople less willing to put in the effort,

especially when they are not getting paid for it directly or indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×