On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. <jer...@shidel.net> wrote:
> 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.

I finally found a(n obvious) term for DOSLFN's situation, License-Free
Software [0].  This means source is unmarked with license and/or
copyright info.  And if you believe DJB's judicial reasoning, placing
the code on the net, demonstrating how to use the software "creates"
an implied license with similar restrictions to Public Domain software

Food for thought.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software

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