> On May 18, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Tom Ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de> wrote:
>>> Without DOSLFN, no support at all for long filenames?
>> Correct. Although, I hear the was another very buggy one that was
>> around before DOSLFN. I don’t know the name.
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
I understand you may have strong feelings regarding this subject. However, name
calling, labels, slander, racism and other inflammatory and degrading remarks
are unacceptable behavior. I have zero tolerance for such games.
Now, my opinion regarding open source. Could not care less. I have written and
released Public Domain, Open Source, Freeware, Trialware and Extremely
Copy-protected software and have every intention of doing so in the future. The
only type I have not done is Shareware and even that is not do to some moral
objection. I just don’t think that model works as intended.
For the packages that are to be included with the next OS release, I have been
given several directives. Among those are that the software package should be
open source and its sources need to be included. Public domain software is less
restrictive than open source. So as long as its source is present, it is fine
that that type of software is included. Other software that places additional
restrictions on use, do not fit the given requirements. Exceptions may be made.
But, that decision is not up to me. I have a moral obligation to evaluate all
of the packages and insure they meet the requirements I was given.
Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me and my opinion
is not even relevant. I have not been informed of any decision to do so. The
problem is its licensing is unclear. There is no licensing information
contained in its source files or with its binaries. It may be Public Domain. I
have no idea.
Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All works
are Copyright at the moment of their creation. Regardless if it is declared or
not. However, it is nearly impossible to enforce a Copyright violation without
said notice. But, would you like to see FreeDOS sued into non-existence do to a
minor copyright violation?
Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to be
unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it. Someone in either
the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that there was another program that
did lfn and it was very buggy. I have no idea what it is called. I have no idea
if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable alternative, it can be
considered for inclusion.
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