With respects to DOS-C, if loading non GPL drivers really did violate GPL, then it would have never been released under GPL. The comparison of drivers to OSLib is an apples and oranges comparison. A DOS loadable device driver is simply an executable that is loaded into memory that follows a certain calling convention.
FreeDOS, or any GPLed MS-DOS alternative, would be totally useless if it disallowed non GPL device drivers, since the vast majority of device drivers are non GPL. Besides, Richard Stallman is well aware of our project and would have contacted us if he felt we were doing something wrong. Pat On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Christian Masloch<c...@bttr-software.de> wrote: *** SNIP *** > Reading some old mailing list archives I found, I think it's something > about the licensing of OSLib. As previously discussed in the BTTR Software > forum, DOS-C (The FreeDOS Kernel) possibly violates the GPL by allowing to > load non-GPL DOS device drivers. Now in FreeDOS-32's architecture the > native drivers and applications are linked into the kernel or something, > so the OSLib guy said they all have to be licensed under the GPL too when > using OSLib. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
