> But as I understand it, a lawyer would put the onus on us
no. we are redistributing what Russ distributes.
> to determine
> if Russ's "GPL" or "public domain" claim came first (as indicated in
> the sources) or if AMD's claim came first (for example, if Russ
> "back-dated" the GPL and didn't remove AMD's claim).
and if Russ was entitled to put GPL licensing on the code is most likely
of AMD origin is entirely different thing. he probably was, but there
is nobody around who would be able to prove or disprove.
it has been around for many more years then even FreeDOS is around, so
you shouldn't bother.
> In the worst case, I'm very concerned about PCNTPK in the FDNET
> package, and the possibility that including it in FreeDOS might cause
> problems later.
what kind of problems? the AMD is coming after you? or that fanatic members of
the GPL cult come after you? the latter is much more likely.
> **I don't do networking under FreeDOS,
AHA.
> so I have never used FDNET, and
> I haven't looked into it. I don't know what FDNET needs to do its job.
AHA.
> Maybe it's possible to remove PCNTPK from FDNET - in which case, the
> license concerns go away. The licenses used in MCTP, NE2000, and
> BERNDPCI.ASM look okay otherwise.
PCNTPK is a single packet ('network card') driver out of many.
removing the complete packet because you think one tiny part might be
problematic is indeed 'out of abandance of caution'.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
