On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: > lincrawl ... (aka, Linley's Dungeon Crawl) is something I used to play [..] > relicensed to GPLv2+." I know that's not exactly the same as saying > the old game is GPL now, but it's close. You'd have to email them > directly to fully clarify, most likely. (BTW, worse news is that they > dropped DOS support around 0.5.5 or whatever a million years ago. So > don't expect sympathy there.) Their site has old 0.5.1 with a DOS > version (2009?), so that's probably roughly the last build. > (Presumably that one has been retroactively relicensed as well, but > you'd have to ask.) [..]
What I understand from this is the new versions are GNU GPL v2, but the old version that has the DOS executable is not. So, omit. > > tppatch ... has no sources. Again, not sure who packaged that. There > are other alternatives with sources (e.g. Veit Kannegieser's R200FIX > asm TSR or Alexei Frunze's BP7_TPL.ZIP / FIX_CRT.PAS), but just having > sources doesn't automatically mean free/libre. So you'd have to email > one of them. Not having source code isn't a problem per-se (but I'd really prefer source code). Not having a license file that says something like "you can share this" or "you can use it however you like" is a problem. > > psrinvad ... I don't know, I agree that the license is unclear, but > Ralf Quint seemed to indirectly imply that the author gave him > permission to do whatever he wanted with it. (Maybe I misunderstood, > but it's a fairly simple game.) Of course, there are many other > Invaders clones (e.g. one ported from QBASIC to XPL0 and a > Curses-based one called nInvaders and also an old 3D Allegro one that > can build for DJGPP). I would hate to lose this one, after all my > "porting" work, but it's not the end of the world. Yeah, the license > is unclear, but I have no idea how to contact the original author. If you're making a case that we should include PSRINVAD, can you cite the license? > curl ... is pretty widespread, so I doubt it has any license problems. > But I'm more concerned that we still only package the old (broken) > version. Even the newer one didn't quite seem to work (for me) while > Wget did fine. Again, I have not had the energy or courage to try > rebuilding this. It shouldn't be impossibly hard, but things like this > are just never easy. I'm thinking now that curl is okay. The wiki note says it uses a mix of licenses, all of which say you can redistribute. So I think this is okay. But I'm looking for others to chime in here. > fdnet ... AFAIK, all of Crynwr was intentionally GPL, but some [..] I have a note that I sent Jerome when we were looking at licenses for FreeDOS 1.2. I can dig that up and use the same justification. > doslfn ... not sure if it's free/libre, but it's widely used. Of > course, there are other alternatives, too, of varying quality (e.g. > StarLFN). At least VFAT/LFN is finally unpatented nowadays (I think?). > Again, you may have to contact the (inactive) maintainer for > clarification. I can't find a license for this in the package. As I said above, not having a license file that says something like "you can share this" or "you can use it however you like" is a problem. Jim _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
