On 1/27/2015 7:09 PM, Michael Brutman wrote: > I almost feel like I should apologize for opening the can of worms. > Some thoughts: > > - Software contributed to FreeDOS needs to be free. (We already > require this. No problem ...) > > - Contributed code should be free from contamination from non-free > code. Looking at leaked MS-DOS source code is enough to disqualify > you from contributing. We can't police this so it is important that > people be mindful and honest. (Reverse engineering executables is > perfectly allowable though.) > > - Toolchains used to build software contributed to FreeDOS should not > need to be free. All that should be required is that any run-time > libraries should be able to be distributed freely. The software needs > to be unencumbered by royalties or any restrictions. > > - While commercial toolchains might involve some cost, usually the > cost is modest - check eBay, Amazon and used software sites. If you > work on a project and you expect to get help it would be in your > interest to use something that is readily available and free, but > ultimately that decision belongs to the authors of the software. > > - Exception: For the kernel and core utilities it is acceptable to > require a specific toolchain. This code is specialized enough where > this requirement is reasonable. > > - New contributions should have a code review done by somebody with > some experience who has an interest in seeing the project continue to > be successful. Usually there is a maintainer who does reviews and > approves commits to a library. I think we have a loose version of > that in place for the kernel already. For the contributed software > the role is less formal; it is just more a matter of making a > judgement call about whether the software should be packaged with > FreeDOS and checking the code for obvious problems. > > - Plus 1 (+1) to not requiring open source tool chains. I'd hate to > see gcc shoved down anybody's throats. People contribute code because > it is fun; it is their pet project. Encouraging open source tool > chains is fine; just don't require them. I'm afraid that reliance on > djgpp will strand 16 bit machines without a really good reason. Lots > of things that are compiled 32 bit today can probably run on a 16 bit > XT with 512K RAM. > > - Software should be included in FreeDOS because it has an expected > benefit to FreeDOS users. While anything might be useful to somebody, > FreeDOS should not devolve into a shareware repository. Remember, > just because somebody doesn't ship with FreeDOS does not mean that it > is not useful. (That applies to both free software and commercial or > less free software.) > Thanks Michael for showing me that I am not the only one thinking this way! ;-)
Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
