> 3. Development/TPPATCH wiki comment>>> no source code, no license text
http://www.ipnet6.org/tppatch.html the comments make it pretty clear that the author wants to give this away for free; just without gnuish legalese. I consider this free, no strings attached. > 4. Utilities/4DOS wiki comment>>> 4DOS uses modified license that does not qualify as > open source by Open Source Initiative or Free Software Foundation > standards. The license does not permit use on non-DOS systems. > [I've also talked about this one elsewhere, including the FreeDOS > Blog, that we should replace 4DOS with something else. I was the one > who worked with JP on the license when he open-sourced 4DOS, and I > gave him bad advice. I didn't have enough experience then, and I > thought his suggested change to the license was still okay. It's not. > So I feel really bad about this, but it's "non-free."] this reminds me of the end of "Brügge sehen und sterben" where the bad guy notices that his own rules also apply to himself - before shooting himself to dead. you should also adjust the wiki where it states that FreeDOS is better then MSDOS because of ... 4DOS ... > 7. Utilities/uptime wiki comment>>> UPTIME.DOC says "Free & Open DOS Utility" but later has > conditions that appear to be incompatible with free software or open > source software, including "3. You must obtain the permission of the > author(s) before distributing this software or derived works > (including combining it with commercial systems) commercially or > depart in any way from the above conditions." Since we have a > duplicate with Chamorro's uptimec, which uses a different license, > let's omit this one. one thing *any* OS or distribution should do is make choices so users don't have to. providing two solutions for the same problem is simply bloat. > These programs are also marked in red, but I could be convinced to > change my mind: > 1. Utilities/SHSUFDRV > License is unclear. Documentation says "Copyright 2005 Jason Hood. > Freeware." But no explicit license in documentation. No mention of > redistribution or other license in source code. Without license, > "Freeware" is not enough to indicate that the software can be > included. in my playbook, "freeware" means "no strings attached. should remain. > Tom suggested a while back that running FreeDOS these days shouldn't > be that complicated if you have a bootable CDROM. I agree, especially > if the LiveCD component is a complete FreeDOS environment. So you > should be able to boot the FreeDOS 1.3 install CDROM, exit out of the > install program, and get a DOS prompt with a complete FreeDOS "Base" > environment. I refer to this on Releases/1.3 as "plain DOS." I think > "plain DOS" should be "Base" plus only a *few* other programs: > probably this is zip, unzip, and FDIMPLES. That gives you all the > tools you need to install manually if you want to. YES. FINALLY! Tom _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
