Bart Oldeman wrote:
...
But there are really two seperate issues here:
1) is the thing mentioned in the yellow box on www.freedos.org about
SYS and FDXXMS. Well at least they mention it now (I can sleep well
as co-copyright holder of SYS I guess):
http://www.drdos.com/products/drdos81.htm
"Portions are licensed under GPL (SYS v2.6 and FDXXMS v.92) or other
licenses."
I am glad to see this. However, DRDOS still has not met the conditions
of the GNU GPL (section 3) relating to redistribution:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
They've acknowledged that FreeDOS SYS and FDXXMS are distributed under
the GNU GPL, but to my knowledge they have not (a) included the complete
source code to both SYS and FDXXMS, or (b) included a written offer to
provide source code for same. Option (3c) is not open to DRDOS, since
this is a commercial distribution.
However, I will admit that I do not know the contents of the Source Code
distro (http://www.drdos.com/products/sourcecode.htm) so it may in fact
include the complete source to SYS and FDXXMS. That is a separate sale
by DRDOS, and a price is not mentioned on their site.
Their Source Code distro may be a perceived grey area in the GNU GPL.
If they include the source for SYS and FDXXMS in their Source Code
distro, then they will have (sort of) met the conditions for (3b).
DRDOS may believe this protects them, although a strict reading of the
GNU GPL would probably not support them.
Unfortunately, this may be the best we can get from DRDOS. I'll still
email them again anyway, and see if they can at least change the wording
on http://www.drdos.com/products/drdos81.htm to be something like we
mention in our FAQ. Currently, their wording says: "Portions are
licensed under GPL (SYS v2.6 and FDXXMS v.92) or other licenses."
If they were to change this to something like the following, I'd be
happy: "SYS v2.6 and FDXXMS v.92 are distributed under the GNU GPL.
These are from the FreeDOS Project, and you may download the latest
versions from www.freedos.org. Or, purchase our DRDOS Open Source Code
CD to obtain the version of the source code included in DRDOS 8.1."
I guess I'm implying that DRDOS would need to create a new product
(another sale!) of a 'DRDOS Open Source Code CD' that includes just the
source code for the open source software products included in DRDOS.
Since it's another sale to them, I imagine that will make it easier for
DRDOS to implement.
2) is what you only see when you click on "Read More", "the stolen
work of Udo Kuhnt which they now sell as theirs", well that is not
really a FreeDOS issue but something between Udo Kuhnt and DRDOS Inc.
I don't think "stolen" is the correct word, since Udo could have
known this could happen: it's entirely legal for the owners of DRDOS
to do this. If Udo would not like this he should not have started his
work.
Pat Villani mentioned that this could happen over 7 years ago!
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freedos-dev&m=90221486827973&w=2
And I agree with him, for the record.
Of course the unprofessional way in which these things appeared to
have been done does not give me much confidence in DRDOS Inc. It's
just that stolen refers to something done illegally, which it isn't.
Yes. The DRDOS / OpenDOS work is unfortunate, and under the DRDOS
license I don't know that Udo has much to stand on.
For those who didn't follow the link, Pat was responding to an email I
had posted (where I responded to a suggestion that the FreeDOS Project
and OpenDOS work together - but we can't, because our licenses are not
compatible.) Pat's reply was:
Your reply is very good and to the point.
I had no problems when Tim Bird originally suggested, on this list, that
we work together. Unfortunately, OpenDOS license is totally
incompatible with GNU.
It is also written in a way that basically allows Caldera to take your
source code, redistribute it for profit and prohibit you from
commercially redistributing your own code. All this for the privilege
of updating or enhancing their code.
For these reasons, I do not and will not use any Caldera product. I
want to ensure that we have no cross contamination.
Pat
The important bit there is "[OpenDOS's license] is also written in a way
that basically allows Caldera to take your source code, redistribute it
for profit and prohibit you from commercially redistributing your own
code. All this for the privilege of updating or enhancing their code."
-jh
--
I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc.
Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course
Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005
Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
