Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
> Sorry David, but you are naive at best. Except that I'm actually very well read on this subject, and I know what I'm talking about. If you think that I'm wrong, present a real argument. Just saying "but you're wrong" isn't an argument. I can go through that license line by line if you need that and prove my case. Show me where in the license the situation I described is prohibited. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 08/25/2018 10:21 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 8/25/2018 4:22 PM, David McMackins wrote: > ... > Sorry David, but you are naive at best. And I leave it at that... > > Ralf > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
On 8/25/2018 9:22 PM, TK Chia wrote: Hello Mr. McMackins, Mr. Quint, Rugxulo, And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. Bollocks in what sense? In a legal sense, you couldn't be more wrong. Now you do say that you're not an attorney, so perhaps you should talk to one about the terms of the license in question. I assure you they I think this is all moot anyway, as there _is_ some source code on GitHub (https://github.com/DigitalMars/) for the compiler, and it _is_ released under the Boost license. So maybe now is a good time to write more code and less polemics, and figure out if we can put the published source code to good use... There isn't anyone who works on OpenWatcom for years now, how do you want to find someone to work on Digital Mars. And as I stated before, the fact that you need to use a completely different development tool is another roadblock... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
Hello Mr. McMackins, Mr. Quint, Rugxulo, And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. Bollocks in what sense? In a legal sense, you couldn't be more wrong. Now you do say that you're not an attorney, so perhaps you should talk to one about the terms of the license in question. I assure you they I think this is all moot anyway, as there _is_ some source code on GitHub (https://github.com/DigitalMars/) for the compiler, and it _is_ released under the Boost license. So maybe now is a good time to write more code and less polemics, and figure out if we can put the published source code to good use... Thank you! -- https://github.com/tkchia -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
On 8/25/2018 4:22 PM, David McMackins wrote: ... Sorry David, but you are naive at best. And I leave it at that... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
A lot of this is petty nonsense, but I'll humor you anyway. > Walter is still charging > for the source code, which by the very fact is contradictory to any > Open Source/"free" software idea. If you have a naive understanding of the way those terms are used nowadays, yes. I implore you to read the definitions of open source and free software given by the OSI and FSF, and you will find nothing prohibiting charging fees for copies, and indeed you may find encouragement. > And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" > statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. Bollocks in what sense? In a legal sense, you couldn't be more wrong. Now you do say that you're not an attorney, so perhaps you should talk to one about the terms of the license in question. I assure you they will fall on my side. By the letter of the license, this absolutely is legit. Now, if you think it's silly to have terms allowing such a situation to occur, that's a completely different argument that I'm not interested in having. I would also accept criticism if you could identify an instance in which I had a 'holier than thou' attitude on this mailing list. I do prefer free software to proprietary, and I have expressed before my interest in making and using only free software, but I don't believe I have ever pretended to be above other users who don't. On the contrary, it is you who come across as a condescending elitist in this thread, and your seniority in the project has no bearing on the facts being discussed. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 08/25/2018 04:15 PM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 8/24/2018 4:48 AM, David McMackins wrote: >>> in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. >> You can use slurs all you want. I'm citing an accepted definition to >> clear a misconception. By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman, >> and I won't be part of the FSF much longer. > Well, ever since you got on this mailing list, you are making statements > that are showing the clear symptoms of the Stallman virus, with a "I am > holier than you" attitude when it comes to tools and applications > related to FreeDOS. There simply is an ever growing disconnect between > what Stallman and the FSF are trying to promote and real life. Some > people understand this, some don't. Or take a really long time to > realize that... >> FreeDOS claims to be a free >> system with all software released under "open source" licenses (which >> was a term invented in an attempt to make the "free software" term less >> confusing and more friendly to businesses). > FreeDOS is perfectly free/open source. You have the source and can > modify it, improve it. But as it has been shown in the +20 years that I > am following this project (doubt that there is anyone but Jim Hall > active on here who is participating longer than me by now) that there is > only an extremely limited number of people that are really active. Or > stay around for a prolonged period of time. And a lot of folks that join > lately (well, for at least the last 10 years), seem to see FreeDOS as a > second coming of Linux or the like, hardly understanding the differences > between DOS and later OS. And that quite frankly shows. >> >> Anyway, all I noticed is that someone made a claim that this compiler >> couldn't have been released under the Boost license because the original >> site is still asking a fee for a copy of the source. Because the Boost >> license is a free license, we can already toss out this claim, because >> it goes against the definition without even having to get into the >> specifics. The FSF, OSI, and others have already done the looking for us. > What the FSF/OSI might have done is to see if that license (like sooo > many before) is fitting their agenda or not. What I was questioning was > why the supposed change in license was not mentioned anywhere on the > Digital Mars web site, while on the same site, Walter is still charging > for the source code, which by the very fact is contradictory to any Open > Source/"free" software idea. And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" > statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. >> It may very well be the case that this compiler has not actually been >> relicensed under the Boost license, but the fee is not evidence of this. > You're still kidding. The best explanation, as the web site has not been > updated for almost a year, since the release of the 8.57 version of the > basic compiler, that the web site also has not been updated to reflect > the change in the license, from a freeware but closed source compiler, > to an Open Source one, regardless of what the license is called (there > are so many of them around those days that it is hard to keep up with > them and what, if any, the differences ar
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
On 8/24/2018 4:48 AM, David McMackins wrote: in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. You can use slurs all you want. I'm citing an accepted definition to clear a misconception. By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman, and I won't be part of the FSF much longer. Well, ever since you got on this mailing list, you are making statements that are showing the clear symptoms of the Stallman virus, with a "I am holier than you" attitude when it comes to tools and applications related to FreeDOS. There simply is an ever growing disconnect between what Stallman and the FSF are trying to promote and real life. Some people understand this, some don't. Or take a really long time to realize that... FreeDOS claims to be a free system with all software released under "open source" licenses (which was a term invented in an attempt to make the "free software" term less confusing and more friendly to businesses). FreeDOS is perfectly free/open source. You have the source and can modify it, improve it. But as it has been shown in the +20 years that I am following this project (doubt that there is anyone but Jim Hall active on here who is participating longer than me by now) that there is only an extremely limited number of people that are really active. Or stay around for a prolonged period of time. And a lot of folks that join lately (well, for at least the last 10 years), seem to see FreeDOS as a second coming of Linux or the like, hardly understanding the differences between DOS and later OS. And that quite frankly shows. Anyway, all I noticed is that someone made a claim that this compiler couldn't have been released under the Boost license because the original site is still asking a fee for a copy of the source. Because the Boost license is a free license, we can already toss out this claim, because it goes against the definition without even having to get into the specifics. The FSF, OSI, and others have already done the looking for us. What the FSF/OSI might have done is to see if that license (like sooo many before) is fitting their agenda or not. What I was questioning was why the supposed change in license was not mentioned anywhere on the Digital Mars web site, while on the same site, Walter is still charging for the source code, which by the very fact is contradictory to any Open Source/"free" software idea. And the "one guy pays, everyone else plays" statement you made is totally bollocks, and you should know it. It may very well be the case that this compiler has not actually been relicensed under the Boost license, but the fee is not evidence of this. You're still kidding. The best explanation, as the web site has not been updated for almost a year, since the release of the 8.57 version of the basic compiler, that the web site also has not been updated to reflect the change in the license, from a freeware but closed source compiler, to an Open Source one, regardless of what the license is called (there are so many of them around those days that it is hard to keep up with them and what, if any, the differences are between them, I am a programmer, not a lawyer). This just happened 3 month ago (according to Github). I will spend some time this weekend to see what actually is available on Github. One of the objections that I had with Roy's original post was the claim that the situation with Digital Mars C(++) would be better than OpenWatcom, which it isn't by a long shot. OpenWatcom is freely available, compileable and ready for improvements (if you have the skills) by itself, and you don't need to buy any source code and use a different compiler (Walter's D compiler) to actualy make any such changes. For me, this puts it practically more in line with the likewise freely available Borland/Turbo C(++) compiler. Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 6:48 AM David McMackins wrote:
>
> > in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis.
>
> You can use slurs all you want.
Some people here are apparently not as pro Free Software as the rest
of us. Though it's (almost) impossible to be a zealot with DOS, even
FreeDOS, because of so much proprietary legacy (including BIOS). We
have to make do with what we're given. I wish people were more
open-minded and diligent about preserving (converting, freeing) old
software instead of letting it rot or die.
It's okay to be pragmatic or not waste all your free time on such
worries. But I do think Free Software is useful, pragmatic, even
necessary in many cases. Let's not trivialize the advantages (or
ignore all proprietary disadvantages). I may not agree that
proprietary software is always directly evil, that indeed is a bit too
stern. But it does often hamper getting work done. "Freedom" is such a
loaded, cliche word, but truly having freedom allows one to do the
greatest good sometimes.
> I'm citing an accepted definition to clear a misconception.
You're correct, of course. They aren't opposed to making some money,
but they prefer an upfront, one-time bounty rather than perpetual
royalties ("hoarding"). They also sell CDs, books/manuals, accept
donations, etc.
> By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman,
I think that's unfair. It's too easy to judge people you've never met
and who have never personally done anything to you. Disagreeing with
some of his politics is one thing, though, but don't take it
personally!
> and I won't be part of the FSF much longer.
Do what you have to do. But don't vilify anyone unless forced.
Nobody's perfect, but we certainly don't need more strife. (I'm not
directly involved with them either, but I harbor no ill will. It's
better just to be peaceful rather than constantly outraged over
trivialities.) Whatever you think of them, they've done a lot of good
technical work.
> FreeDOS claims to be a free
> system with all software released under "open source" licenses (which
> was a term invented in an attempt to make the "free software" term less
> confusing and more friendly to businesses).
FreeDOS ain't perfect, but at least some of us have tried to make it
better. Complaining doesn't fix bugs. But we're always low on
volunteers, and I'm no engineer, so my contributions are weak. Still,
IMNSHO, it's a very good OS! I love it!
> > still annoying.
>
> Get over it. No one's forcing you to read it, and it doesn't get in the
> way of the actual message. It's an email signature, and almost everyone
> has had them for a long time.
There is a point where people's eyes tend to glaze over due to
irrelevant details. However, the ads that SF.net adds at the bottom
(compounded by the fact that nobody trims their replies, hence tons of
redundancy) makes your sig less of an issue overall.
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
> in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. You can use slurs all you want. I'm citing an accepted definition to clear a misconception. By the way, I don't even like Richard Stallman, and I won't be part of the FSF much longer. FreeDOS claims to be a free system with all software released under "open source" licenses (which was a term invented in an attempt to make the "free software" term less confusing and more friendly to businesses). Anyway, all I noticed is that someone made a claim that this compiler couldn't have been released under the Boost license because the original site is still asking a fee for a copy of the source. Because the Boost license is a free license, we can already toss out this claim, because it goes against the definition without even having to get into the specifics. The FSF, OSI, and others have already done the looking for us. It may very well be the case that this compiler has not actually been relicensed under the Boost license, but the fee is not evidence of this. > still annoying. Get over it. No one's forcing you to read it, and it doesn't get in the way of the actual message. It's an email signature, and almost everyone has had them for a long time. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 08/24/2018 06:39 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: > > >>> You're kidding, right? > >> Um, no I'm not kidding. > > you are not kidding, because it's not even remotely funny. > > in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. > > >> Happy Hacking, > >> David E. McMackins II >> Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) >> Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) > >> www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com >> www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org > > still annoying. > > Tom > > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
>> You're kidding, right? > Um, no I'm not kidding. you are not kidding, because it's not even remotely funny. in that case, you are showing acute symptoms of stallmanitis. > Happy Hacking, > David E. McMackins II > Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) > Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) > www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com > www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org still annoying. Tom -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
> You're kidding, right? Um, no I'm not kidding. You should read any one of the free licenses on this list: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses For any given one of them, whoever is distributing it is allowed to charge a fee, and then the recipient may distribute at their own will or for a fee of their own. That is in the definition of free software. If you don't like the FSF, try the OSI: https://opensource.org/licenses/category Or Copyfree: http://copyfree.org/standard/licenses This is what "free software" (as a technical term) has meant for decades. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 08/24/2018 01:39 AM, Ralf Quint wrote: > On 8/23/2018 11:42 AM, David McMackins wrote: >>> And that means you still have to pay >>> $59 to get the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless >>> of license, doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than >>> OpenWatcom'... >> >> Not really. If it's under a free (as in freedom) license, then only >> one person (or many pooling together) needs to put up the cash to get >> one copy, then they can give it away. > You're kidding, right? > > Ralf > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
On 8/23/2018 11:42 AM, David McMackins wrote: And that means you still have to pay $59 to get the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless of license, doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than OpenWatcom'... Not really. If it's under a free (as in freedom) license, then only one person (or many pooling together) needs to put up the cash to get one copy, then they can give it away. You're kidding, right? Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
On 8/23/2018 12:23 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: Hi Ralf, Do you have a link stating that Walter Bright changed the license on his C(++) compiler? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17129678 Besten Dank, Robert! Just curious as to why there is not one word mentioned on his Digital Mars web site. Anyway, the fact that you actually need yet another compiler to do anything with it would be rather troublesome as far as I am concerned... Will look into this more this weekend, I guess. Just had a quick dinner after coming back home and it is already 11:20p. Time flies, even if you don't have fun... :( Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
2018-08-24 2:01 GMT+08:00 Ralf Quint : > On 8/23/2018 7:47 AM, Roy Tam wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Since Digital Mars C/C++ compiler can target DOS16, and they >> relicensed compiler in Boost license, which is more "free" than >> license that OpenWatcom uses currently, I wonder if core components >> like kernel, FreeCOM, or accessories like EDIT can be compiled with >> DMC? > https://github.com/DigitalMars/dmc/commit/9a774f3f2b3227fd416ec3a83cb9eb8f8751425f > Do you have a link stating that Walter Bright changed the license on his > C(++) compiler? > All I see on his web site is the same as it was when I downloaded the last > version about a year ago. And that means you still have to pay $59 to get > the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless of license, > doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than OpenWatcom'... > > On 8/23/2018 7:59 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: >> >> long time ago (before even WATCOM existed as a free compiler), I tried >> this and failed, as some critically required segment directives were >> missing. 15 years later, this may have changed. >> >> good luck when trying this. > > Having known and used the Zortech/Zorland compiler "way back when...", I > looked into the re-release of the Digital Mars compiler (<10 years ago) and > it worked just fine for "regular" programs, though I did not try to use it > against the kernel or FreeCOM. > But then the source code for the compiler isn't openly available and hence a > lot of those infected with the Stallman virus would object anyway, so I have > not looked any further into it, beside occasionally downloading a newer > version of the C compiler and the DOS related libraries... > > Ralf > > Ralf > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
Hi Ralf, > Do you have a link stating that Walter Bright changed the license on his > C(++) compiler? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17129678 Cheers, Robert -- +++ BTTR Software +++ Home page: http://www.bttr-software.de/ DOS ain't dead: http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
And that means you still have to pay $59 to get the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless of license, doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than OpenWatcom'... Not really. If it's under a free (as in freedom) license, then only one person (or many pooling together) needs to put up the cash to get one copy, then they can give it away. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 2018-08-23 13:01, Ralf Quint wrote: On 8/23/2018 7:47 AM, Roy Tam wrote: Hi all, Since Digital Mars C/C++ compiler can target DOS16, and they relicensed compiler in Boost license, which is more "free" than license that OpenWatcom uses currently, I wonder if core components like kernel, FreeCOM, or accessories like EDIT can be compiled with DMC? Do you have a link stating that Walter Bright changed the license on his C(++) compiler? All I see on his web site is the same as it was when I downloaded the last version about a year ago. And that means you still have to pay $59 to get the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless of license, doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than OpenWatcom'... On 8/23/2018 7:59 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: long time ago (before even WATCOM existed as a free compiler), I tried this and failed, as some critically required segment directives were missing. 15 years later, this may have changed. good luck when trying this. Having known and used the Zortech/Zorland compiler "way back when...", I looked into the re-release of the Digital Mars compiler (<10 years ago) and it worked just fine for "regular" programs, though I did not try to use it against the kernel or FreeCOM. But then the source code for the compiler isn't openly available and hence a lot of those infected with the Stallman virus would object anyway, so I have not looked any further into it, beside occasionally downloading a newer version of the C compiler and the DOS related libraries... Ralf Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
On 8/23/2018 7:47 AM, Roy Tam wrote: Hi all, Since Digital Mars C/C++ compiler can target DOS16, and they relicensed compiler in Boost license, which is more "free" than license that OpenWatcom uses currently, I wonder if core components like kernel, FreeCOM, or accessories like EDIT can be compiled with DMC? Do you have a link stating that Walter Bright changed the license on his C(++) compiler? All I see on his web site is the same as it was when I downloaded the last version about a year ago. And that means you still have to pay $59 to get the source code for the compiler, which I think, regardless of license, doesn't really qualify as ' more "free" than OpenWatcom'... On 8/23/2018 7:59 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote: long time ago (before even WATCOM existed as a free compiler), I tried this and failed, as some critically required segment directives were missing. 15 years later, this may have changed. good luck when trying this. Having known and used the Zortech/Zorland compiler "way back when...", I looked into the re-release of the Digital Mars compiler (<10 years ago) and it worked just fine for "regular" programs, though I did not try to use it against the kernel or FreeCOM. But then the source code for the compiler isn't openly available and hence a lot of those infected with the Stallman virus would object anyway, so I have not looked any further into it, beside occasionally downloading a newer version of the C compiler and the DOS related libraries... Ralf Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
Hallo Herr Roy Tam, am Donnerstag, 23. August 2018 um 16:47 schrieben Sie: > Hi all, > Since Digital Mars C/C++ compiler can target DOS16, and they > relicensed compiler in Boost license, which is more "free" than > license that OpenWatcom uses currently, I wonder if core components > like kernel, long time ago (before even WATCOM existed as a free compiler), I tried this and failed, as some critically required segment directives were missing. 15 years later, this may have changed. good luck when trying this. > FreeCOM, should be possible. just will cost you a few weeks of your holidays. > or accessories like EDIT can be compiled with > DMC? > Regards, > Roy Tom -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] Does Digital Mars C/C++ compiler able to compile FreeDOS kernel, FreeCOM, and others?
Hi all, Since Digital Mars C/C++ compiler can target DOS16, and they relicensed compiler in Boost license, which is more "free" than license that OpenWatcom uses currently, I wonder if core components like kernel, FreeCOM, or accessories like EDIT can be compiled with DMC? Regards, Roy -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
