Eric, what I meant is: see how many people writes to us telling that
the MS-DOS-style MENUing in CONFIG.SYS does not work in FreeDOS, so I
guess we would be flooded with messages like: I wrote with LFNs to a
disk, and Windows no longer recognises the filenames, and has the
FILE4~1.TXT form
On Mar 31, 2009, at 1:52 PM, usul wrote:
There is always another way to do it.
receiving a long file name in a long file name format;
storing the received long file name in a first file entry of the tree
structure along with a file storage indicator indicating the location
of the file in
Travis Siegel wrote:
Personally, I fail to see how lfn could be patented in the first place.
US Patent Law is screwed up. For example the company that I just left
has a patent on putting hardware on
carts for delivery to clients. Something like that should never have
been allowed.
But even if
Couldn't there be a optional syncfat program that one could run at the
boot of freedos, and before shut down?
Could synchronize the FreeDos LFN and the M$ Dos storages mediums. It
may not,since isn't live access, violate
the patent. Many Programs write/read directly to and from the fat tables
Hi Aitor,
But then it wouldn't be compatible with the LFN that came with
Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor
with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite
the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based...
...
I think a descript.ion file based
But then it wouldn't be compatible with the LFN that came with
Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor
with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite
the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based...
Aitor
2009/4/2 Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de:
Hi!
Hi!
So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows
lookup in a second area, either a file on
the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the
file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely
separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be
Norton utilities used to put a text file on each dir with long
descriptive names. Also remember umsdos file system used to emulate
unix file system over fat16 including long names and permissions
2009/4/1, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de:
Hi!
So why cant we just create a database/table - file
Eric Auer schrieb:
Hi Michael,
indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)...
What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense
also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel?
Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would
have to re-implement LFN from scratch and there is
At 10:04 AM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
Otherwise I would say that if you are scared of Microsoft patents then
you can publish nothing you have developed. Because
You should really read up before you make such statements...
1) Not only Microsoft has patents, many others have also.
Question on these as I don't really understand.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5745902U.S.
Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file
names having different file name formats
-
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5579517U.S.
As an American I was under the impression that the European Union decided
that software methodologies were not patentable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
Even if someone files a patent - infringement cases are not enforced by
the government patent office but by the patent holder.
At 11:16 AM 3/31/2009, usul wrote:
Question on these as I don't really understand.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5745902U.S.
Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file
names having different file name formats
-
Ralf A. Quint schrieb:
From that view it's not possible for non-cooperates (individual hobbyist
projects) to develop and publish software. You would always need a legal
department which is telling it's ok to violate patents, if them are are
accusing us we will accuse them with out collection
And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to
store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in
FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names
and Extended Attributs as covered by those patents.
What about the way UMSDOS used to do
There is always another way to do it.
receiving a long file name in a long file name format;
storing the received long file name in a first file entry of the tree
structure along with a file storage indicator indicating the location
of the file in the memory;
automatically generating a short file
Eric Auer schrieb:
Hi Michael,
indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)...
What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense
also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel?
Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would
have to re-implement LFN from scratch and there is
At 11:36 AM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
In regards to having a legal department, that's why the OSF has one
for Open Source projects...
What do you mean with OSF? Open Software Foundation?
Correct.
However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones).
As I
usul schrieb:
I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent.
So educate me why am I wrong. :)
Well, the final verdict gives always the court. Unfortunately not always
the logic wins.
(I haven't said anything about bribemoney!)
It also depends on the technical understanding of
At 11:52 AM 3/31/2009, usul wrote:
same result different method.
I could be way off base here not knowing DOS programming nor
legaleese. But still different method and system
is still different.
I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent.
So educate me why am I wrong. :)
Well,
At 11:36 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote:
And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to
store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in
FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names
and Extended Attributs as covered by
At 11:59 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote:
So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows
lookup in a second area, either a file on
the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the
file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely
separate from
Whenever theoretically someone would claim you are violating our
patents, stop it for we sue you it questionable if the sabre rattle was
already enough for the extortion and if ever a court would have the
chance to judge.
I would stand my ground if I knew that I took the time to avoid the
By the way I must repeat the question who would be theoretically sued?.
I would think the end users.
For Example:
Companies that distribute new PCs with FreeDos installed.
someone that sold FreeDos on a bootable USB
Someone that sold and built CD for open source.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Michael Reichenbach
michael_reichenb...@freenet.de wrote:
Eric Auer schrieb:
Hi Michael,
indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)...
What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense
also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel?
Yes but: The DOSLFN
Ralf A. Quint schrieb:
However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones).
As I live in Germany I see no reason to ensure to follow all US laws (no
racism or whatever here, just the same way I do not ensure it for any
other country where I do not life).
It seams to me
At 12:30 PM 3/31/2009, Jim Hall wrote:
When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see
approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux
first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN
and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. In February 2009,
Ralf A. Quint schrieb:
Not the programmer of DOSLFN would be sued, also probable not the
hypothetical programmer for LFN in DOS-C.
I think it's the distributor who would get sued and this is in this case
the responsible person for the website. (Fortunally also other people
are redistribution
usul schrieb:
By the way I must repeat the question who would be theoretically sued?.
I would think the end users.
For Example:
Companies that distribute new PCs with FreeDos installed.
someone that sold FreeDos on a bootable USB
Someone that sold and built CD for open source.
And why
Does that mean everyone has to take out DOSLFN?
From linux and freedos?
Maybe this is also a dumb question but is it possible to run
FreeDos on a different File System? liek on of the linux ones
and still be able to run/use most dos programs?
I just missed it thats all, :)
--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Jim Hall schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Michael Reichenbach
michael_reichenb...@freenet.de wrote:
Eric Auer schrieb:
Hi Michael,
indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)...
What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense
also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel?
Well, it would be theoretically possible to implement something like
ext3 as most DOS applications use the filesystem API and not the disk
directly, them wouldn't recognize.
But this wouldn't be a good solution as there are still much more other
patents we might have not considered yet.
-mr
-Original Message-
From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM
To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS
kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
...
If LFN support were part
But this wouldn't be a good solution as there are still much more other
patents we might have not considered yet.
But I believe there is enough usage of the Linux file systems
to make this a less than likely target.
And FAT = Microsoft so it was easy for them to use that as a target.
David C. Kerber schrieb:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM
To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS
kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
...
If LFN
Adding LFN support directly to the kernel could have a much larger
impact. In reality, the first step is always a Cease Desist letter -
which usually means stop distributing the offending parts. Where LFN
remains with DOSLFN (an external TSR) we simply remove DOSLFN from
ibiblio and from our
OTOH linux has had LFN for ages; without problems so far. only now MS
started some fight with TomTom
In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include
DOSLFN, and instead indicate where the user could download it
separately. (http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/)
IMO
At 04:01 PM 3/31/2009, Jim Hall wrote:
OTOH linux has had LFN for ages; without problems so far. only now MS
started some fight with TomTom
In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include
DOSLFN, and instead indicate where the user could download it
separately.
At 12:59 PM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
Ralf A. Quint schrieb:
Not the programmer of DOSLFN would be sued, also probable not the
hypothetical programmer for LFN in DOS-C.
I think it's the distributor who would get sued and this is in this case
the responsible person for the
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
David C. Kerber schrieb:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM
To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS
kernel
At 05:59 PM 3/31/2009, Bonnie Dalzell wrote:
Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents -
developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along
with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago.
Extended partitions were introduced in 1986. Again just 3 years
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Ralf A. Quint wrote:
At 05:59 PM 3/31/2009, Bonnie Dalzell wrote:
Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents -
developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along
with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago.
Extended
43 matches
Mail list logo
