On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 04:12 +0200, japhethx gmail wrote: > > [snip] I think > > everybody has learned the last years that GPL software can be used > > without any second thoughts and distributed freely.[snip] > > No.
Yes, that's a huge strong point. As long as you provide access to the complete source code, for a fee to cover copying/transmission or gratis is irrelevant. > > I am also a real fan of the Free Software idea. Otherwise I wouldn't > > use FreeDOS (which is released under the GPL as well). Some developers > > may not be too happy about the license choice, especially those who > > would like to grab your code and try to make money from it by making > > it part of an unfree software. But who cares about them? I think the > > GPL is about having fun, about trust and fairness and about learning > > from others and alllowing others to participate. > > Thanks for your enthusiasm and propaganda! > > GPL is a valid license that has its pros and cons. Personally, I don't like > it. One reason for this is because it sounds like a political manifesto, > which > - IMO - insults the readers intelligence. > > Just my opinion :)). Is there a software license open source or not that DOESN'T limit you in some way? Can a software license not be political? What's really driving this anti-GPL commentary? Sure, you can't hide changes that you make to open source software under the GPL. Why does the GPL exist? Simple, Microsoft is an unchallenged monopoly. The only serious alternative that exists to Windows is open source software. No closed source commercial endeavor can get off the ground. If you like Windows, there is ReactOS. This is a GPL based project that has a ways to go, but I suppose it is somewhat interesting. The GPL is not always convenient, but would you pay for Freedos 1.1 say $100+ if it wasn't free? The answer is clearly no. Freedos will always be free, give or take a sharing fee. GPL software can be fixed even if the original author dies or loses interest in it. With closed source software, this isn't the case at all. With most software these days being old software that needs to be maintained, open source often makes more sense than closed source. Back to networking, DOS by it's very nature is one of the simplest OS'es in existence. DOS hides very little from user space. Security is an afterthought. Networking and security go hand in hand. If one tries to impose a networking standard on DOS or worse one expects to make DOS thread and multi core safe, the product will not be DOS. Freedos has no way of running up to date web browsers. Adding them to freedos, there is a risk that the minimum computer needed will become a Pentium 4 or better. File level security can't be implemented in a DOS environment without breaking old software that isn't aware of the security. I don't know if thread programming is even possible in DOS. I suppose one could develop a hypervisor for multi core systems that implements an independent copy of DOS on each processor core. I understand that there was at one time a multi user version of DOS, but compatibility is going to be an issue trying to implement one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
