On 8/24/2018 4:48 AM, David McMackins wrote:
in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis.
You can use slurs all you want. I'm citing an accepted definition to
clear a misconception. By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman,
and I won't be part of the FSF much longer.
Well, ever since you got on this mailing list, you are making statements
that are showing the clear symptoms of the Stallman virus, with a "I am
holier than you" attitude when it comes to tools and applications
related to FreeDOS. There simply is an ever growing disconnect between
what Stallman and the FSF are trying to promote and real life. Some
people understand this, some don't. Or take a really long time to
realize that...
FreeDOS claims to be a free
system with all software released under "open source" licenses (which
was a term invented in an attempt to make the "free software" term less
confusing and more friendly to businesses).
FreeDOS is perfectly free/open source. You have the source and can
modify it, improve it. But as it has been shown in the +20 years that I
am following this project (doubt that there is anyone but Jim Hall
active on here who is participating longer than me by now) that there is
only an extremely limited number of people that are really active. Or
stay around for a prolonged period of time. And a lot of folks that join
lately (well, for at least the last 10 years), seem to see FreeDOS as a
second coming of Linux or the like, hardly understanding the differences
between DOS and later OS. And that quite frankly shows.
Anyway, all I noticed is that someone made a claim that this compiler
couldn't have been released under the Boost license because the original
site is still asking a fee for a copy of the source. Because the Boost
license is a free license, we can already toss out this claim, because
it goes against the definition without even having to get into the
specifics. The FSF, OSI, and others have already done the looking for us.
What the FSF/OSI might have done is to see if that license (like sooo
many before) is fitting their agenda or not. What I was questioning was
why the supposed change in license was not mentioned anywhere on the
Digital Mars web site, while on the same site, Walter is still charging
for the source code, which by the very fact is contradictory to any Open
Source/"free" software idea. And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays"
statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it.
It may very well be the case that this compiler has not actually been
relicensed under the Boost license, but the fee is not evidence of this.
You're still kidding. The best explanation, as the web site has not been
updated for almost a year, since the release of the 8.57 version of the
basic compiler, that the web site also has not been updated to reflect
the change in the license, from a freeware but closed source compiler,
to an Open Source one, regardless of what the license is called (there
are so many of them around those days that it is hard to keep up with
them and what, if any, the differences are between them, I am a
programmer, not a lawyer). This just happened 3 month ago (according to
Github).
I will spend some time this weekend to see what actually is available on
Github.
One of the objections that I had with Roy's original post was the claim
that the situation with Digital Mars C(++) would be better than
OpenWatcom, which it isn't by a long shot. OpenWatcom is freely
available, compileable and ready for improvements (if you have the
skills) by itself, and you don't need to buy any source code and use a
different compiler (Walter's D compiler) to actualy make any such
changes. For me, this puts it practically more in line with the likewise
freely available Borland/Turbo C(++) compiler.
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
