Hi again,

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. <jer...@shidel.net> wrote:
> It took some doing. But, I have gone through all both the packages proposed
> for the FreeDOS 1.2 release. So, here are the changes that have been
> implemented. Some of these are listed even though it was decided beforehand
> that they were going to be pulled. One or two, have problems and aI am
> waiting on a decision from Jim to determine their fate. I have corrected
> nearly all packages with incorrect license types and versions. For example:
> BASE\APPEND was just GNU GPL, but is GNU General Public License, Version 2
> DEVEL\REGINA was listed as GPL, but is actually GNU Library General Public
> License, Version 2
> DEVEL\NASM has moved from GPL  to Simplified (2-Clause) BSD License.
> etc…

Great, but it's not really your responsibility to precisely mention
the exact (sub)license of every single util included. That's very hard
to do with thousands of files, way too many to vet (IMHO)!

In particular, some software is "GPLv2 only" while others are "GPLv2
(or later)" or even "GPLv2 (only) or GPLv3 (only)".

[It's a mess.]

> Anyhow, these are the problem packages and their probable destinies.
> ZOO - Includes sources, may be Public Domain. No License information.
> Dropped.

I already pointed you to Debian. Or just use older 2.01 if that
worried. Or just use BOOZ, at least it can decompress. But hey, it's
fairly obscure at this point, so I doubt most people even want it or
know what it is.

> No issues.

Really? Did you double-check JEMM (JLOAD.EXE + *.JLM) and CuteMouse

> PAKUPAKU - Unknown License, Dropped.

"Source Code (C) Jason M Knight and released to the public domain."

[Granted, I admit that even "public domain" isn't airtight and the
term can be misused, but here's it's fairly obvious that he's not
restricting it.]

Check his website for more info:    http://www.deathshadow.com/

> PEDE - Unknown License, Dropped.

Indeed, I couldn't find any obvious licensing about that. Usually he
puts everything as GPLv2, but here it seems it's an old program that
he co-wrote with two other people, so maybe that's the hangup.

> XARGON - Two Licenses, One COMMERCIAL do not redistribute. AND Freeware
> License??? Dropped.

No idea, haven't looked, but presumably it was originally commercial
and later made "freeware". That's how things usually happened.

> NET:
> CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.

Uh ... "most" of it should be (intentionally) GPL, but there are still
some pieces (e.g. RTSPKT.COM) that aren't.

> CURL - Listed as GPL, it is not. No Sources. Dropped.

AFAIK, Curl is BSD-ish (contra GNU Wget, which is obviously GPLv3+),
with sources. I have at least three (unofficial, third-party) DJGPP
builds of it, but I have not rebuilt it myself nor heavily tested it.
At least Mik's latest (2015) build has HTTPS/SSL support (I think??)
and should work better than the (much older, buggy) others.

Once again, the problem is that I can't test every binary (in all
subfunctionality) nor vet every single source file nor (easily)
reproduce the build. So I can't really vouch for it, hence I've not
gone too far out of my way to promote it.

[Of course, having said that, I'd never use any software if I had to
personally vet everything, it would just take too long or is even
impossible in some cases.]

> ADT2 - Fair License? Dropped.

Used to be on SF.net, but now is only back on original site (with
sources). But I don't see any obvious licensing in the (older) .ZIP I
have on my hard drive. The newer Git version doesn't say anything
either (except about non-DOS, SDL's license).


> MPXPLAY - Unknown License, Dropped.

SF.net lists it as "Other License", which presumably means some kind
of generic "open source". (Maybe it slipped through the cracks, who
knows, but I just assume everybody knew what they were doing.)

> 4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?


4dos800.zip's LICENSE.TXT seems to remind me of (derivative of) BSD 4-clause.


"[modified MIT License that does not qualify as open source by OSI;

> BIEW - Listed as correctly as GPL, No Sources. Dropped.


"GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPLv2) "

[Though it's been a few years, I seem to recall that his DOS binaries
were 686+.]

> DIALOG - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Dropped.

I assume that is this one:


> DOSLFN - Listed as GPL, No License Messages, Keep?

Debatable. Not honestly sure, which probably means we should be highly


> GCDROM - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Based on XCDROM, Removed.


> MEMTEST - Listed as Freeware, Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.


But that only contains sources for "A loader for www.Memtest86.com images".
Not sure what other pieces are needed (nor exactly which ones or how
to find them).

> UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.

Uh, no. AFAIK, none of his variations were ever "non-commercial only"
(which would neither be "open source" [OSI] nor "Free" [FSF]).

   XMGR, RDISK, and UIDE are offered at no cost, "as is", "use at your own
   risk", and with NO warranties, not even the implied warranty of FITNESS
   for any particular purpose nor of MERCHANTABILITY!

However, AFAIK, Jim (still) seems to think it would be better
(overall) if we removed these. I don't personally know of any concrete
legal reason to do so, only some irrational rants and behavior from
Jack himself.

> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.

He has some (pointless, but whatever ...) license where he doesn't
want it to be redistributed, but sources are indeed available upon
request (for personal use, I presume). So it's not very useful to us,
we're forced to make everyone go get it manually.

> WHICH - Listed as GPLv2, No Sources, Dropped.


> XCDROM - Removed.

Obsolete (in lieu of UIDE). Although Jack has renamed his "drivers"
many many times, so I agree that it's hard to keep up.

> XMSDISK - Listed as Freeware, No Sources, Dropped.

You mean Frank Umberto's old freeware RAM disk (but no sources)? I
presume that's what that is. Lemme check.



Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to