> Adding LFN support directly to the kernel could have a much larger
> impact. In reality, the first step is always a Cease & Desist letter -
> which usually means stop distributing the offending parts. Where LFN
> remains with DOSLFN (an external TSR) we simply remove DOSLFN from
> ibiblio and from our software list, and remove the FreeDOS 1.0
> distribution that includes it. That requires re-releasing a FreeDOS
> 1.0.1 distro that does not include DOSLFN.

> If LFN support were part of the kernel, a C&D would mean not
> distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very
> difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version.

this might also make life slightly more 'dangerous' for FreeDOS users like

  motherboard manufacturers that ship a FreeDOS CD/ISO to burn the BIOS

  system manufacturers (Dell etc.) that put a FreeDOS distribution CD
  close to the machine

  FreeDOS based recovery tools


OTOH linux has had LFN for ages; without problems so far. only now MS
started some fight with TomTom

> In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include
> DOSLFN, and instead indicate where the user could download it
> separately. (http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/)

IMO this would be

a) paranoia. I think it's unlikely that MS management even cares
about FreeDOS in any way; it's extremely unlikely they would take the
time to sue a distribution of FreeDOS X.Y

b) irrelevant. I highly doubt there will be a FreeDOS 1.1. Ever. Feel
free to prove me wrong.

> When others have asked me, I have recommended a "wait and see"
> approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux
> first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN
> and move on with plain non-LFN FAT.


Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to