> 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. right.
> 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. right. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
