You can call the copyright office and have them do a search (its not
free)
If they don't find anything registered then its pretty much open
season for that software. You have to pay by the hour (labor) for a
search.
DS
On Wed, 18 May 2016 18:22:02 -0400 Jerome E. Shidel Jr.
<jer...@shidel.net> writes:
>
> > 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 donât know the name.
> >
> > THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
> >
> > one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
> >
> > bye
> >
> > Tom.
>
> Tom,
>
> 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 donât
> 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 donât 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.
>
> Jerome
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> 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!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
******************************************************>>>>
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
*******************************************************>>>>
____________________________________________________________
ABP Tactical
This Pen Could Save Your Life
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573dc7cede54f47ce78c1st01duc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
