On 10/29/2017 3:04 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > Without getting in the *Free Software* v *Open Source Software* > debate, I believe FreeDOS should be available to everyone, and should > never become closed source. For that reason, I contributed my FreeDOS > work under the GNU GPL. I don't think that anyone would ever seriously consider to make FreeDOS anything but "Open Source", available to everyone. However.... > I want FreeDOS to only include tools and programs that everyone can > use and modify, hence every program in the FreeDOS distribution is > under the GNU GPL, MIT, or other open source license. I know the FSF > isn't too fond of the OW license, but it is still open source (note: > FSF doesn't like the term "open source" either). OpenWatcom works well > and meets the criteria for FreeDOS. IMHO, screw the FSF. Seriously. It has turned into one of those almost religious fanatics entities that pretend to be "more pious than the pope" (a translation of a German saying).
MS/PC-DOS predates the FSF, GPL and the Stallman virus. DOS itself (in pretty much any incarnation, up to and including FreeDOS itself) has always been depending on "less-than free" development tools. GNU tools usable for DOS, including DJ Delorie's DJGPP, were never intended as a tool for developing of any DOS, but rather to allow those that were used to work with Unix tools to work with similar/familiar tools on top of DOS, for which Delorie even had to write one of the first "DOS Extenders" (GO32). > > That said, I'd love to see other tools become part of FreeDOS. If > there was a DOS-native GCC that could generate 16-bit binaries in the > different memory models, I'm all for that. Don't hold your breath Jim. If there aren't any folks interested anymore in maintaining OpenWatcom, how do you think there will be people interested in spending their time on a behemoth of compiler to provide the work necessary to develop that. Even DJ Delorie way back then (started in 1989, pretty much unmaintained since 1998/1999) went (kind of) the easy way out, going the 32 bit, protected mode, flat memory mode route... Beside OpenWatcom, there is only DeSmet C as a full fledged 16 bit DOS based and targeting compiler, though only two memory models (small and huge), that's available with an Open Source license. And to me, who would like to see things more practical than overly idealistic, even the freely available versions of TurboC(++) fit the bill just fine, likewise for Digital Mars C/C++, which is not Open Source, but still a high end, freely available compiler with a plain 16bit DOS target (though the compiler, pretty much like OpenWatcom, doesn't itself run on DOS anymore). Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
