What you write is truth but it doesn't apply to kernel.
Inspired by some other recent thread here, I would like to discuss the legality of ReactOS. So far it's been found that Wine no longer accepts contributions from ReactOS, as they stated on their website "Don't look at ReactOS code either (not even header files). A lot of it was reverse-engineered using methods that are not appropriate for Wine, and it's therefore not a usable source of...
"Don't look at ReactOS code either (not even header files). A lot of it was reverse-engineered using methods that are not appropriate for Wine, and it's therefore not a usable source of information for us. [1]"
Why don’t you help ReactOS? ExectOS goals are very different from ReactOS, and contrast the project’s core philosophy as being quite on different paths. While ReactOS aims to replicate Windows® NT™, ExectOS is a completely new Operating System implementing the XT architecture which derives from NT™. Although both projects share the goal of being NT™ compatible, they intend to achieve it in different ways. What ReactOS tries to replicate, ExectOS only implements as a compatibility layer. Thanks to that, ExectOS does not need to strictly follow NT™ architecture and is capable of providing modern features.
Do you intend to cooperate with ReactOS to achieve common goals? No. We share Wine’s opinion on the inappropriate reverse-engineering methods used in the ReactOS project, as well as its association with the TinyKrnl project, which used every possible method of achieving the end result of having a 100% compatible results. This especially applies to the so-called ‘dirty’ way.