Re: [fd-dev] GPL
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have another GPL-related question. As I understand, authors (copyright holders?) may change license from GPL to other. How this actions is reactive? I mean: what will happen with previous and current program releases, which was under GPL and already widely distributed? My understanding of this (and I am neither a lawyer nor Richard Stallman, so I am probably unqualified to give an opinion) is that the existing GPLled distributions remain GPL. It's not retroactive. This question is actually not releated to GPL in particular, but to licenses in general: If the license by itself permits, that the granted rights may be cancelled later on, you can change the license and at the same time cancelling the elder one, BUT I'm pretty sure that, if you do, and somebody is still continueing the elder release (where the elder license is enclosed), you'll have a hard time to find a judge, who sues this somebody for any different than to stop using it, when it is fairly understandable that this somebody may happen to not know of the license cancelling. (Note the basic: It's not a license _change_, but a _cancel_ of a license) The GPL in particular does not include any paragraphe that allows to withdraw the license, hence, any source that is GPL'ed remains GPL'ed forever, BUT the _original_ author of a line of code may _re-release_ this same line under another license; which is not to change the license of an existing product, but to emit the product anew. However, it was discussed earlier often enough, once a project has more than one author, incl. by receiving patches or code-near help, you get into trouble to release the code under another license, because you have to get permission of everyone, who was involved. Bye, -- Steffen Kaiser -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:57:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/5/2002 6:55:30 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have another GPL-related question. As I understand, authors (copyright holders?) may change license from GPL to other. How this actions is reactive? I mean: what will happen with previous and current program releases, which was under GPL and already widely distributed? My understanding of this (and I am neither a lawyer nor Richard Stallman, so I am probably unqualified to give an opinion) is that the existing GPLled distributions remain GPL. It's not retroactive. That's right. If it's released under the GPL it can't be changed. But the next version might come under another license. So the author himself is not bound to the GPL, but others are. It is also possible to release one and the same software under two licenses. There is also a GPL-FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Passage from this FAQ: I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs. To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times. -- Tschuess Andreas -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
X-Comment-To: Andreas K. Foerster Hi! 6-äÅË-2002 10:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas K. Foerster) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: AKF To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but AKF legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the AKF copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various AKF different non-exclusive licenses at various times. Thank you. BTW, what mean non-exclusive licenses in sense of applying to different distributions (releases) of same software? -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
Andreas K. Foerster wrote: There is also a GPL-FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Passage from this FAQ: I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs. To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times. To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted??? Is the author talking specifically about RE-releasing software that was under a free license under a non-free license, or is he speaking generally?? (If it's the first answer, then the author worded that paragraph VERY poorly). -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] [OT] Microkernel architecture
Hi, Something interesting! Now I remember where I took my information from: Undocumented DOS, the times of NT4 came later, I guess ;-)) Aitor On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 10:34, Aitor Santamaria Merino wrote: And I'll admit that I don't know much of the internal structure of NT, but I'm pretty sure that at least until 4.0, you could have device drivers that would run in kernel mode, which would be indicative of a monolithic kernel. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant? (Just asking 'cause I know that under the best circumstances I can be cryptic sometimes, lol). No, but I believed that drivers in WinNT run in usermode (ring3) whereas in VMM they run at ring0, or at least, they have IOPL0. Windows NT 3.1 through 3.51 ran drivers in user mode, Windows NT 4.0 and later run drivers in ring 0 for performance reasons. Microsoft used to beat OS/2 up over the fact that OS/2 2.0 the drivers ran in ring 0 and so could crash the kernel, but they switched when as a server 0S/2 out performed them. NT was originally headed up by the guy who headed development VMS for Digital Equipment Corporation, so there is some similarity there. Anyway I've had enough of this thread. Regards, Paul _ Horas ilimitadas para leer y enviar correos con Tarifa Plana Wanadoo ¡¡ desde las 3 de la tarde!! Compruébalo en http://www.wanadoo.es/acceso-internet -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:45:08PM +0300, Arkady V.Belousov wrote: AKF To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but AKF legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the AKF copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various AKF different non-exclusive licenses at various times. Thank you. BTW, what mean non-exclusive licenses in sense of applying to different distributions (releases) of same software? This text wasn't written by me, it was a cite. When I read your question, I first thought, this is obvious. But the more I think about it, the less obvious it is... When you release something under the GPL you give the rights to anybody. So you cannot tell others, that they are the only ones who have the right, ie. you can't say they have the exclusive right. This is obvious, when we talk about the same software. But what is not so obvious, is the question, what happens, if you just use parts of your own(!) GPLd code in a totally new software. I am not sure, but I think, this new software then can be under an exclusive license. You just cannot privatize the GPLd part of it anymore. But I am not a lawyer either... -- Tschuess Andreas -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 04:04:44PM +0100, Paul Case wrote: There is also a GPL-FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Passage from this FAQ: I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs. To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times. To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted??? Is the author talking specifically about RE-releasing software that was under a free license under a non-free license, or is he speaking generally?? (If it's the first answer, then the author worded that paragraph VERY poorly). The GNU people are against unfree software in general - even against noncommercial unfree software. That's the difference between the Free Software movement and the OpenSource movement. If you want to learn more about the different views, read this text from the OpenSource movement: http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/ and this text form the Free Software movement: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html BTW. as you can see the term Free Software is used by both movements -- Tschuess Andreas -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Andreas K. Foerster wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:45:08PM +0300, Arkady V.Belousov wrote: AKF To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but AKF legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the AKF copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various AKF different non-exclusive licenses at various times. Thank you. BTW, what mean non-exclusive licenses in sense of applying to different distributions (releases) of same software? This text wasn't written by me, it was a cite. When I read your question, I first thought, this is obvious. But the more I think about it, the less obvious it is... I read non-exclusive as may not contradict each other. If I write software under license A and B and then license A says: this code may not be released under any other license, then I would be contradicting myself (hence, a fairly technical issue, sue yourself!). And yes, ethically tainted comes from the FSF position that all non-free (as in speech) software is ethically wrong. Bart -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
X-Comment-To: Bart Oldeman Hi! 6-äÅË-2002 14:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thank you. BTW, what mean non-exclusive licenses in sense of applying to different distributions (releases) of same software? When I read your question, I first thought, this is obvious. But the more I think about it, the less obvious it is... BO I read non-exclusive as may not contradict each other. Yes, me too - although Andreas retreat this as exclisive rights. BO If I write software under license A and B and then license A says: this BO code may not be released under any other license, then I would be BO contradicting myself (hence, a fairly technical issue, sue yourself!). But any commercial license (which restricts distribution) contradicts to GPL! BO And yes, ethically tainted comes from the FSF position that all non-free BO (as in speech) software is ethically wrong. -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [fd-dev] GPL
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Arkady V.Belousov wrote: BO If I write software under license A and B and then license A says: this BO code may not be released under any other license, then I would be BO contradicting myself (hence, a fairly technical issue, sue yourself!). But any commercial license (which restricts distribution) contradicts to GPL! only for non-full-copyright holders, unless the software was dual (or more)-licensed from the start. AOL/Netscape is allowed to release closed-source versions of Netscape but a large part of Netscape is Mozilla, where Mozilla is triple-licensed under the NPL, MPL, and LGPL. Similar for Sun with StarOffice and OpenOffice (SISSL/(L)GPL). And Pat Villani had a commercial (better said, proprietary) predecessor of the FreeDOS kernel which he, if he wants, can still treat as such. However all of my, Tom's, ror4's, James Tabor, ... changes are under the GPL, and we, as individuals, are not allowed to change the license of the FreeDOS kernel as a whole. Neither can Pat take those changes and make them proprietary. Bart -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [fd-dev] DISPLAY CON?=
On 2002-12-05, Michal H. Tyc wrote: So I think that COLOR: and MONO: devices would be better. If I understand well, MODE MONO would attach CON: to MONO: and MODE [CO|BW][80|40] to COLOR:? Actually, these (COLOR: and MONO:) are the names used in Axel's DUALMON.SYS driver... ;-) I have had some reservations against these names, as they are more likely to exist as filenames on disk, and for some odd aesthetical reasons I didn't liked that the names' lengths were different, so I thought CO80: and BW80: were good alternatives, but you have a very good point here, they are not. Maybe CONC: or CONM:, or just CON1: and CON2:? ;-) Anyway, once DISPLAY would accept the con[:]=... thing as an actual parameter, the actual name wouldn't matter much any more. Switching between a monochrom MGA/HGC/HGC+ etc. and a color CGA/MCGA/EGA/VGA/SVGA goes by MODE MONO and MODE CO80. And, finally, a bit exotic scenario, that should also be handled properly, if all these features are introduced: DEVICE=DISPLAY.SYS COLOR:=(cga,(437,161),0) MONO:=(ega,437,1) (i.e., Arabic CGA with color monitor plus EGA with TTL monochrome one -- I have never seen such a combination, but handbooks say it is possible). Yes, this should be possible as well, but I too have never used this combination. Some earlier issues of MS-DOS/PC DOS DISPLAY.SYS seem to have had a facility to store them in the HMA, but I'm not completely sure about that. I have never observed this to happen. But I have. It could be MS-DOS 5.00, but I'm not sure -- too long time ago. Thanks for the info. Did DISPLAY.SYS took over the HMA completely, or did it occupy only parts of it and shared the rest with other clients? The DR-DOS DISPLAY.SYS does not currently support storing the fonts in the HMA or XMS, unfortunately. If we are already talking about all the small potential risks ;-) then it should be also said that some old or poorly written programs may not like to receive pointers into HMA (because of possible 20-bit address wraparound). Maybe this is the reason why MS removed this feature in later versions? Of course, this can only work if there are no public pointers pointing into the HMA, and DISPLAY.SYS (or any other HMA client) will only access the HMA from within a mutex which ensures that A20 is on. That's one of the reasons, why relocation into the HMA is difficult, and drivers usually require a stub in the 1st meg to ensure that A20 is on before they just in there. Greetings, Matthias -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html; http://mpaul.drdos.org Programs are poems for computers. -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[fd-dev] thanks!
just a quick email to say thanks to everyone who works on this project! i recently purchased a new motherboard and was horrified to find how old the BIOS was and riddled with so many bugs (abit) actually coughed up to writing. then matters got worse as i discovered i needed DOS to flash the award bios... well, that just wasnt happenning since i use GNU/Linux at home and SUN at work, and all the M$ users i know have upgraded to XP already... freedos was to the rescue! i messed with and stripped the installation image for one of the recent freedos betas, and put the necessary award flashing apps in there and rebooted. fingers crossed i flashed the bios, and it all worked perfectly! thanks! Sam -- No matter how old a mother is, she watches her middle-aged children for signs of improvement. -- Florida Scott-Maxwell -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [fd-dev] GPL
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted... But it's okay to get paid for work on somebody else's ethically tainted software, or expect contributions to support your work, or do free work on somebody else's time, or pyramid sell the idea of free software to stay on top of that particular heap. Well, it sounds awfully like crap to me, folks. If you give it away, which I sometimes do, you kiss it goodbye, but that's not making a living. The most insidious part of this cant is the quasi-religious assertion that the author can define what is ethical and what is not. Ethics is a set of principles to guide behavior. You don't have to be a collectivist, individualist or anything else to organize your own ethics. Odd how the promulgators of free software can be so opposed to free ideas. The only real human right is to do what you please, and this brings with it the only human responsibility - to take the consequences. P.J. O'Rourke Jim -- list options/archives/etc.: http://www.topica.com/lists/fd-dev unsubscribe: send blank email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Rv5.bbRv4l.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
