Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[John R. Sowden]

Excuse me for butting in ...  but,

I understand the the FreeDOS package should be pure open source with no 
caveats.  I also see that there are many programs out there that are  
'available for use by the general public', but have varying license 
tweaks that make them not pure open source. Some of these programs have 
been in use long before we got picky about the term 'open source'.  
Ubuntu seems to have solved this by treating them separately, not part 
of the install.  Couldn't the same be done here?  If any author or troll 
(strike that - license holder)  complains, their program could be 
removed from the separate .ZIP.


Possibility?

John
Still a Wordstar/FoxPro 2.6 User

On 05/15/2016 03:52 PM, Rugxulo wrote:

Hi,

Dennis, I almost hate to bring this type of stuff up. It's almost
flamebait because nobody can agree. So it's a waste of time.
Nevertheless 

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney  wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:

I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
*wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.

It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD.

What has that to do with anything?

Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.

It's pretty relevant. Without a "free" DOS, he couldn't (re)distribute
a bootable CD at all. He'd have to make all his users find a
compatible DOS elsewhere, which is not as easy as it sounds (anymore).


It just means FreeDOS is
compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
beginning.

Yes, but compatibility means little if you can't redistribute (or
easily acquire) the OS. There are many commercial, proprietary DOSes,
but almost all of them have died (and can't be easily found legally).
I'm not trying to overhype FreeDOS, but it's literally the only one
who cares about that. Any one of them could've done it, but they
didn't.


And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
for disk access and testing.

Great, but "barely uses" still means you have to have a compatible DOS
... unless he makes it like old PC booter games (no OS or only uses
BIOS).


The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
commercial product.

I hate to nitpick, but please stop using "open source" to mean
something other than OSI. Yes, it can be misused, and no, they
probably can't stop you (trademark claims), but it's not beneficial at
all to pretend that "open source" means just "sources available". Most
people only refer to "open source" as OSI (or similar free software).


That may not be impossible, but it's so unlikely
that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.

It's not unlikely or they wouldn't have bothered making such restrictions.


As a rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and likely
pay a fee for the right to do so.)

Not at all. Who told you that? You're pretty uninformed here. "Open
source" always means able to use without charge. The term was designed
to be business friendly so that they could hire developers (if needed)
to improve existing code bases, similar to (but broader than) GPL.
Even GPL was designed more to sell future development as a service
instead of perpetual royalties just to use a single-user license of
proprietary crud that can't be changed.


If the idea is that only code
issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.

Silly? Aren't you friends with Eric Raymond? He's a very big "open
source" (OSI) proponent. Heck, he co-founded OSI!

OSI was meant to 'promote open source ideas on "pragmatic,
business-case grounds." '. And business obviously means money, but
that doesn't mean paying (over and over again) for frozen software.

I realize that there's still lots of proprietary software, and not
everyone agrees with OSI or FSF. But there is a heavy push towards
business-friendly "open source" / "free software". It's just easier
for developers (and those who are willing to pay people to improve
public software).

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

Dennis, I almost hate to bring this type of stuff up. It's almost
flamebait because nobody can agree. So it's a waste of time.
Nevertheless 

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:58 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
> wrote:
>>
>> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
>> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
>> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
>> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
>>
>> It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
>> commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD.
>
> What has that to do with anything?
>
> Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
> majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
> that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.

It's pretty relevant. Without a "free" DOS, he couldn't (re)distribute
a bootable CD at all. He'd have to make all his users find a
compatible DOS elsewhere, which is not as easy as it sounds (anymore).

> It just means FreeDOS is
> compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
> it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
> beginning.

Yes, but compatibility means little if you can't redistribute (or
easily acquire) the OS. There are many commercial, proprietary DOSes,
but almost all of them have died (and can't be easily found legally).
I'm not trying to overhype FreeDOS, but it's literally the only one
who cares about that. Any one of them could've done it, but they
didn't.

> And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
> actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
> for disk access and testing.

Great, but "barely uses" still means you have to have a compatible DOS
... unless he makes it like old PC booter games (no OS or only uses
BIOS).

> The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
> commercial product.

I hate to nitpick, but please stop using "open source" to mean
something other than OSI. Yes, it can be misused, and no, they
probably can't stop you (trademark claims), but it's not beneficial at
all to pretend that "open source" means just "sources available". Most
people only refer to "open source" as OSI (or similar free software).

> That may not be impossible, but it's so unlikely
> that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
> usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.

It's not unlikely or they wouldn't have bothered making such restrictions.

> As a rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
> product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and likely
> pay a fee for the right to do so.)

Not at all. Who told you that? You're pretty uninformed here. "Open
source" always means able to use without charge. The term was designed
to be business friendly so that they could hire developers (if needed)
to improve existing code bases, similar to (but broader than) GPL.
Even GPL was designed more to sell future development as a service
instead of perpetual royalties just to use a single-user license of
proprietary crud that can't be changed.

> If the idea is that only code
> issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
> contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
> FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.

Silly? Aren't you friends with Eric Raymond? He's a very big "open
source" (OSI) proponent. Heck, he co-founded OSI!

OSI was meant to 'promote open source ideas on "pragmatic,
business-case grounds." '. And business obviously means money, but
that doesn't mean paying (over and over again) for frozen software.

I realize that there's still lots of proprietary software, and not
everyone agrees with OSI or FSF. But there is a heavy push towards
business-friendly "open source" / "free software". It's just easier
for developers (and those who are willing to pay people to improve
public 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!
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Rugxulo]

Hi again,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Jerome Shidel  wrote:
>> On May 15, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2016, at 11:11 PM, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Kernel update is forthcoming.
>>> I still need to run some tests and make 386+ builds, but updated
>>> packages will be available at
>>> http://www.fdos.org/kernel/release/LATEST/fdpkg/ and release builds
>>> uploaded to SF.
>>
>> Uh, it doesn't work. Any attempt to download the 2042 files from
>> SF.net fails with an error message.
>
> I had no problem downloading them from the provided link. Also, put them into 
> FDI - P19 that I released earlier today.

Okay, I just grabbed it from above (and not SF.net).

I notice that there is seemingly one bug / regression, otherwise all
my "tests" (MetaDOS) seem to work fine. (I assume Jeremy will notice
this and that I don't have to file a separate bug report or email him
privately. If not, I'll try to remember later.)

In an attempt to not load the RAM driver over and over again, I had a
naive "if exist %RAMDRIVE%:\nul goto end" inside the actual
RAMDRIVE.BAT file (which is called by autoexec).

That no longer works. Apparently it's even getting confused about
drives since "\tmp" already exists on boot drive. "if exist g:\tmp\nul
echo Yup!" succeeds (as does "q:" or "z:" or anything else, which is
way past my setting for LASTDRIVE). Same with "a:\extras" or
"a:\system" or "a:\network".

So "A:\> if exist z:\network\nul echo Yup!" says "Yup!" when it
shouldn't (because "a:\network" exists). But "if exist z:\netwrk\nul
echo Yup!" still fails (as it should).

--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
>
> It is not an impossibility. For example , the current version of the
> commercial product SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD. Although,
> I  hear the next version will be adding Mac Support and dropping all
> Operating System for direct hardware access.
> So, not the entire world has moved on yet.

What has that to do with anything?

Spinrite is and always has been a commercial product.  The vast
majority of what ran under DOS back when was commercial.  The fact
that it *runs* under FreeDOS is irrelevant.  It just means FreeDOS is
compatible enough with MS/PC/DR DOS that Spinrite *will* work under
it.  That level of compatibility was a FreeDOS design goal from the
beginning.

And as I recall, Spinrite only uses DOS to load it.  It does not
actually use DOS once up and running, and has its own low level code
for disk access and testing.

The issue is open source code in a FreeDOS distro being used in a
commercial product.  That may not be impossible, but it's so unlikely
that whether the particular open source license freely allows such
usage is something I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about.  As a
rule, if you wish to incorporate open source code into a commercial
product, you are expected to get clearance from the author (and likely
pay a fee for the right to do so.)  If the idea is that only code
issued under an open source license that *doesn't* require you to
contact the author about commercial usage should be included in the
FreeDOS 1.2 distro, that's a profoundly silly notion.

> Jerome
__
Dennis

--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:34 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
> wrote:
>>
>> However, clause 3 for its license makes it NON-COMMERCIAL use only.
>>
>> (3) The Software, or any portion of it, may not be used in any commercial
>>   product without written permission from Rex Conn 
>
> I fail to understand why that's a problem.

If you're forbidden from making derivatives and redistributing them
openly, even selling them, then it's neither "open source" (OSI) nor
"Free software" (FSF).

Many online hosts (e.g. SF.net) demand open source. Even Jim Hall
doesn't want anything non-free mirrored to iBiblio anymore, if at all
possible.

It's easy to discount it as zealotry, but it really does simplify
things when you have the so-called "four freedoms" (run, study,
modify, redistribute).

FreeDOS was meant to be "free". The kernel is GPL. I realize that it's
a losing battle in some ways. Some things are probably insurmountable
(binary blobs?). Even Linux is still having as hard a time as ever.
There's just too many proprietary pieces in today's world, and they're
not going away any time soon.

You can't win everything. But we still have to try. Otherwise what's
the point? Just use Windows (and IE/Edge, MSVC, Hyper-V, Word, etc).

If there are literally no practical benefits for license restrictions,
then they should be lifted / avoided.

--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.
 wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2016, at 11:11 PM, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:
> [..]
>
> Kernel update is forthcoming.
> I still need to run some tests and make 386+ builds, but updated
> packages will be available at
> http://www.fdos.org/kernel/release/LATEST/fdpkg/ and release builds
> uploaded to SF.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> I just realized it was available.
>
> So, even though I pushed FDI Preview 18 last night…
>
> I took a few seconds, and Preview 19 is now out the door. It uses and
> installs 2042.

Uh, it doesn't work. Any attempt to download the 2042 files from
SF.net fails with an error message.

--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> 
> I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
> *wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
> open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
> from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
> __
> Dennis

It is not an impossibility. For example, the current version of the commercial 
product
SpinRite runs on a FreeDOS boot CD. Although,  I hear the next version will be
adding Mac Support and dropping all Operating System for direct hardware access.
So, not the entire world has moved on yet.

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
> On May 15, 2016, at 1:17 AM, dmccunney  wrote:
>
> [..]
>>> 4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?
>>
>> 4DOS sources, for the original 7.50 release, and the later 8.0 release
>> by Luchezar Georgiev may be found here, along with 4DOS original
>> author Rex Conn's open source license:
>> http://www.4dos.info/sources.htm#1
>>
>> 4DOS is my command processor of choice under DOS.
>
> Thanks for the link. I have attached the sources to the my build copy of the
> 4DOS package.
>
> However, clause 3 for its license makes it NON-COMMERCIAL use only.
>
> (3) The Software, or any portion of it, may not be used in any commercial
>   product without written permission from Rex Conn 
>
> We will have to see if Jim is OK with keeping it in FreeDOS 1.2.

I fail to understand why that's a problem.

Many open source licenses have language about commercial use resolving
to "Contact the author about a license if you want to include the
software in a commercial product".  The assumption is that commercial
use involves taking it closed source.

Rex specifically released the 16bit 4DOS code as open source.  Later
32/64 bit products like TCC remain commercial.  If you expect to take
any of the 4DOS code and include it in something you will *sell*, Rex
expects a piece of the action.  I would be stunned if anyone ever
*did* contact Rex about it.

I can't imagine anyone taking stuff from a FreeDOS 1.2 release and
*wanting* to issue it as a commercial product.  Rex released 4DOS as
open source because it was no longer selling.  The world had moved on
from MSDOS and 16 bit, and so had he.
__
Dennis

--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 - Preview 17

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

:-)

> On May 11, 2016, at 11:11 PM, perditi...@gmail.com wrote:
> [..]
> Kernel update is forthcoming.
> I still need to run some tests and make 386+ builds, but updated
> packages will be available at
> http://www.fdos.org/kernel/release/LATEST/fdpkg/ 
>  and release builds
> uploaded to SF.
> 
> Jeremy

I just realized it was available.

So, even though I pushed FDI Preview 18 last night…

I took a few seconds, and Preview 19 is now out the door. It uses and installs 
2042.

Unrelated to 2042, with the additional sources in some of the other packages. I 
had to stop
installing a couple things due running out of space on the 32MB USB stick. I 
picked not to 
install MTCP, WGET and VMSMOUNT. They are still included on the Big USB and 
CD-ROM
images as uninstalled EXTRAS. Either the USB stick had to grow or something had 
to go.

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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 needs you

[Dale E Sterner]

Are you saying Linux over freedos.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:27:37 -0500 Rugxulo  writes:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Dale E Sterner 
>  wrote:
> >
> > If Jack's drivers are left out of version 1.2 ; is there
> > something to replace them.
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/
> 
>
-
-
> 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
***


Living Tips
$3 Teeth Whitening Has Dentists Furious
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5738903e4138a103d6953st02duc

--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello,

> >Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t >mean 
> >they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
> provided on ibiblio.
> 
> I am a bit confused by this, it seems to be an "end-around" solution; has 
> this been happening all along?

I don’t feel like it is. I am talking about them having been dropped or removed 
them from the Official  FreeDOS 1.2 release. Most of the dropped packages never 
even shipped with FreeDOS. They could be added later by the user. However, for 
those packages that met Jim’s requirements and for user convenience many of 
these uninstalled packages can be provided as EXTRAS on the big USB stick and 
CD-ROM versions. This would let the user have many desired add-on programs 
available without any extra fuss. But, there are requirements for all packages 
that are to be included on the Official install mediums. 

Also, think of it this way. MS-DOS never shipped with SoundBlaster or Adlib 
drivers. Besides the extra floppies that would have required. There would have 
licensing concerns. However, there was no problem with a user installing those 
drivers later.

> >PS: Why so many IBIBLIO files, how about Mateusz' updater repository?

They are from there 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/

> Perhaps this is the ideal solution, trim FreeDOS to a genuine FREE/Open 
> Source distro, and let end-users include the files they wish from alternate 
> sites?

This is one of reasons for all of the specific requirements packages must meet 
for their 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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

>Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t >mean
>they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
provided on ibiblio.

I am a bit confused by this, it seems to be an "end-around" solution; has
this been happening all along?

>PS: Why so many IBIBLIO files, how about Mateusz' updater repository?
Perhaps this is the ideal solution, trim FreeDOS to a genuine FREE/Open
Source distro, and let end-users include the files they wish from alternate
sites?





On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Don Flowers  wrote:

> PS - I apologize for the mistypes, I am on my first cup of coffee :^)
>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Don Flowers  wrote:
>
>> > XCDROM - Removed.
>> UIDE is NOT 100% compatible to XCDROM, I just built a retro PIII Intel
>> SE440BX-2 (a very popular MB according to the VOGONS site) which for some
>> reason only reads CDs/DVDs with the XCDROM driver no matter what drive I
>> install.
>>
>> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
>> > aforementioned packages, but
>> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
>> > disappeared), it falls to such
>> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>> Your work is not unappreciatated, I am just wondering why this task
>> wasn't delegated by Jim BEFORE Jerome's AWESOME installlation efforts were
>> employed.
>>
>> MPXPLAY works on several of my PC's, PAKUPAKU is a PACMAN derivative and
>> is one of my favorite games.
>>
>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
>>> > (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/
>>>
>>> Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well.
>>>
>>> There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not
>>> on ibiblio.
>>>
>>> Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that
>>> LSM data problems that I corrected as well.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
>>> > few days, and then re-upload them
>>> > so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
>>> > means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
>>> > shouldn't be "too" hard.)
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me. :-)
>>>
>>> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
>>> > aforementioned packages, but
>>> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
>>> > disappeared), it falls to such
>>> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>>>
>>> Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or,
>>> the "but there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you
>>> using it?” I shake my head and sigh.
>>>
>>> > I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
>>> > free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
>>> > anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
>>> > never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
>>> > loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
>>> > isn't easy in some programs).
>>> >
>>> > Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
>>> > the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
>>> > problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
>>> > FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).
>>>
>>> Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
>>> they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot
>>> be
>>> provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship
>>> with the
>>> official release of FreeDOS 1.2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
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 

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Eric Auer]

Hi Jerome,

> Mostly, I think your interpretation matches mine. However, when UIDE was
> used FDINST would throw random errors. Why? IDK. It was suggested that
> command line switches could be used to help correct the issue. However...

It would not be the first driver which is not always automatically
doing the right thing. However, DOS users are known to know what
they do, so you can include the driver in the distro. Simply drop
it from being part of the default config and autoexec :-) Same for
USB or network drivers. In FreeDOS 1.0, those would hang on some PC,
so it would have been better to not activate them by default. Still
it was good that they were included in the distro in general :-)

> Per a different suggestion, switched to using UDVD2 and the problems
> vanished. UDVD2 is by the same author...

Good point. UDVD2 is a good choice for those who want a CD/DVD driver
and need something newer than the latest open source version of XCDROM.

However, I would still include (but not default-activate) one of the
UIDE family drivers for those who want extra harddisk UDMA support.

Regards, Eric

PS: Why so many IBIBLIO files, how about Mateusz' updater repository?



--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

PS - I apologize for the mistypes, I am on my first cup of coffee :^)


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Don Flowers  wrote:

> > XCDROM - Removed.
> UIDE is NOT 100% compatible to XCDROM, I just built a retro PIII Intel
> SE440BX-2 (a very popular MB according to the VOGONS site) which for some
> reason only reads CDs/DVDs with the XCDROM driver no matter what drive I
> install.
>
> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> > aforementioned packages, but
> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> > disappeared), it falls to such
> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
> Your work is not unappreciatated, I am just wondering why this task wasn't
> delegated by Jim BEFORE Jerome's AWESOME installlation efforts were
> employed.
>
> MPXPLAY works on several of my PC's, PAKUPAKU is a PACMAN derivative and
> is one of my favorite games.
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>> >
>> > I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
>> > (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/
>>
>> Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well.
>>
>> There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not
>> on ibiblio.
>>
>> Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that
>> LSM data problems that I corrected as well.
>>
>> >
>> > If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
>> > few days, and then re-upload them
>> > so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
>> > means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
>> > shouldn't be "too" hard.)
>>
>> Sounds good to me. :-)
>>
>> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
>> > aforementioned packages, but
>> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
>> > disappeared), it falls to such
>> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>>
>> Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or, the
>> "but there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you
>> using it?” I shake my head and sigh.
>>
>> > I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
>> > free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
>> > anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
>> > never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
>> > loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
>> > isn't easy in some programs).
>> >
>> > Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
>> > the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
>> > problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
>> > FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).
>>
>> Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
>> they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot
>> be
>> provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship
>> with the
>> official release of FreeDOS 1.2.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

> XCDROM - Removed.
UIDE is NOT 100% compatible to XCDROM, I just built a retro PIII Intel
SE440BX-2 (a very popular MB according to the VOGONS site) which for some
reason only reads CDs/DVDs with the XCDROM driver no matter what drive I
install.

> Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> aforementioned packages, but
> since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> disappeared), it falls to such
> pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
Your work is not unappreciatated, I am just wondering why this task wasn't
delegated by Jim BEFORE Jerome's AWESOME installlation efforts were
employed.

MPXPLAY works on several of my PC's, PAKUPAKU is a PACMAN derivative and is
one of my favorite games.

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
wrote:

>
> > On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> >
> > I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
> > (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
> >
> >
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/
>
> Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well.
>
> There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not
> on ibiblio.
>
> Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that
> LSM data problems that I corrected as well.
>
> >
> > If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
> > few days, and then re-upload them
> > so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
> > means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
> > shouldn't be "too" hard.)
>
> Sounds good to me. :-)
>
> > Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> > aforementioned packages, but
> > since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> > disappeared), it falls to such
> > pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(
>
> Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or, the
> "but there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you
> using it?” I shake my head and sigh.
>
> > I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
> > free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
> > anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
> > never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
> > loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
> > isn't easy in some programs).
> >
> > Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
> > the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
> > problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
> > FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).
>
> Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
> they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
> provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship with
> the
> official release of FreeDOS 1.2.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello Eric and all,

4DOS:

I fixed the missing source issue. If Jim is fine with including a 
“Non-commercial use only” program it can stay. Otherwise,
it will either have to be installed later or could be provided on
unofficial FreeDOS releases.

GCDROM:

The GCDROM are incomplete they only contain the XCDROM source.
Also, it states that it is based on XCDROM. XCDROM has been removed for 
other reasons. So, GCDROM even if fixed. It’s fate is in question.

UIDE:

Mostly, I think your interpretation matches mine. However, when UIDE was used
FDINST would throw random errors. Why? IDK. It was suggested that command 
line switches could be used to help correct the issue. However, that would not
be remotely practical and might have required having a different install media
fork for every platform and virtual machine. Per a different suggestion, 
switched
to using UDVD2 and the problems vanished. UDVD2 is by the same author and
may eventually suffer the same fate as UIDE, XCDROM, RDISK and XMGR. 


--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 15, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Rugxulo  wrote:
> 
> I assume that your .ZIPs of CuteMouse
> (ctmouse.zip) and Jemm386 (jemm.zip) come from here:
> 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.1/repos/base/

Yep, nearly all others are from ibiblio as well. 

There are some, that I have updated and a few like CDRCACHE that are not on 
ibiblio.

Also, several on ibiblio that were missing sources and a few others that LSM 
data problems that I corrected as well.

> 
> If that's the case, then I will (weakly) "try" to fix them in the next
> few days, and then re-upload them
> so that FD 1.2 will have a slightly less burdensome status. (Which
> means trying to rebuild all their various (sub)binaries, which
> shouldn't be "too" hard.)

Sounds good to me. :-)

> Honestly, this kind of task belongs to the maintainers of those
> aforementioned packages, but
> since most so-called maintainers are too busy (or long since
> disappeared), it falls to such
> pathetic souls such as myself. (Sigh.) :-(

Agreed. When, I see the “can’t you fix” this package or that one. Or, the "but 
there is a newer version of this one on the website why aren’t you using it?” I 
shake my head and sigh. 

> I just hate to drop some things that are, in fact, useful and "mostly"
> free just because of some errant file or two. Jemm386 I never use much
> anymore (although it's still very useful, in select cases; but JLOAD
> never caught on, quite honestly). CuteMouse might be a much bigger
> loss (although I personally try to avoid the mouse, usually, which
> isn't easy in some programs).
> 
> Neither should have to be dropped, so I'm 99% sure that I can remove
> the closed-source parts successfully. I know this isn't a "real"
> problem, thus we keep procrastinating, but we do overall want to keep
> FreeDOS "free" (or as close as possible!).

Just as a general statement regarding “Dropped” packages. It doesn’t mean
they cannot be used or installed later. It also doesn’t mean they cannot be
provided on ibiblio. It only means, (if not fixed) they will not ship with the
official release of FreeDOS 1.2. 



--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 15, 2016, at 1:17 AM, dmccunney  wrote:
>> [..]
>> 4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?
> 
> 4DOS sources, for the original 7.50 release, and the later 8.0 release
> by Luchezar Georgiev may be found here, along with 4DOS original
> author Rex Conn's open source license:
> http://www.4dos.info/sources.htm#1
> 
> 4DOS is my command processor of choice under DOS.

Thanks for the link. I have attached the sources to the my build copy of the 
4DOS package.

However, clause 3 for its license makes it NON-COMMERCIAL use only.

(3) The Software, or any portion of it, may not be used in any commercial
  product without written permission from Rex Conn 

We will have to see if Jim is OK with keeping it in FreeDOS 1.2.


--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 15, 2016, at 12:41 AM, Thomas Mueller  wrote:
> [..]
> I don't know if DIALOG proposed for FreeDOS is the same as any of those 
> dialogs.

I think it is the “DIALOG” package that shipped with FD1.1.

> 
> 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.

> 
> Without GCDROM and XCDROM, will there be any way to read CDs and DVDs, and 
> possibly burn a CD or DVD?

There is still UDVD2. It has been permitted to remain for now. However, in the 
long term, Jim has stated he would like to see it replaced with another 
solution.

> 
> CURL is open-source and much used in (quasi-)Unix OSes.

CURL is probably fine. But, it completely failed LSM verification. It is listed 
as being GPL. It’s license is clearly not. I’m not looking at it right now. 
But, if I recall correctly, i think it was either BSD or BSD-like. There were 
basic directives played out regarding what packages get included in FD1.2. I 
temporarily bent these restrictions for a couple highly demanded packages like 
4DOS. But, for most, I did not. That being said, CURL should be fixable if the 
license info is corrected and sources are included.

> PING and WHICH are a common part of open-source (quasi-)Unix systems.

I didn’t do any temporary rule bending on these. They are probably fixable. 
However, I think there is a PING included in MTCP as well.

> 
> Available source code does not necessarily mean buildable in FreeDOS; porting 
> to DOS typically requires much wrestling and is not always workable.  
> Remember DOSzilla?
> 
> I couldn't find NEWSNUZ.

It is on the ibiblio repository. 

> 
> Some of the packages, such as UIDE, UMBPCI and XMSDISK, are DOS-specific.
> 
> I'm not trying to track down any of the games you listed.  Aside from 
> TETRIS2K (related to Tetris?), I never heard of any of the others, or didn't 
> pay attention.
> 
> Tom


--
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

Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Eric Auer]

Hi!

In particular: Hi Rugxulo, hi Jim, hi Bret, hi Jerome ;-)

>> CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.
> 
> Uh ... "most" of it should be (intentionally) GPL, but there are still
> some pieces (e.g. RTSPKT.COM) that aren't.

Would be good to have!

>> MPXPLAY - Unknown License, Dropped.
> 
> SF.net lists it as "Other License", which presumably means some kind
> of generic "open source". (Maybe it slipped through the cracks, who
> knows, but I just assume everybody knew what they were doing.)

Good question.

>> UTIL:
>>
>> 4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?
> 
> https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/user/4dos/
> 
> 4dos800.zip's LICENSE.TXT seems to remind me of (derivative of) BSD 4-clause.

Thanks :-)

> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=4dos
> 
> "[modified MIT License that does not qualify as open source by OSI;
> non-commercial]"

Good enough for me, we are not the A Whole GNU DOS distro.

>> DOSLFN - Listed as GPL, No License Messages, Keep?
> 
> Debatable. Not honestly sure, which probably means we should be highly
> pessimistic.
> 
> http://adoxa.altervista.org/doslfn/index.html

If you really care, fix the license message? I assume it
simply did come with but did not display the license?

>> GCDROM - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Based on XCDROM, Removed.
> 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/cdrom/gcdrom/

Thanks!

>> MEMTEST - Listed as Freeware, Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.
> 
> http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/memteste.zip
> 
> But that only contains sources for "A loader for www.Memtest86.com images".
> Not sure what other pieces are needed (nor exactly which ones or how
> to find them).

This thing is ancient. I probably just assembled the loader to work
with some version of MEMTEST that I had around as a binary. As you
remember, MEMTEST is originally designed to be loaded by any boot
menu which can load a Linux kernel and boot menus do not ship with
Linux kernels either. As far as I remember, you simply had to do a
binary concatenation of the MEMTEST loader and the binary, so you
can ship them separately to be nice to the licenses. Note that I do
vaguely remember somebody mailing me years ago that my loader does
no longer support the newer versions of MEMTEST anyway. Which did
not have trivial reasons. Maybe an expert like Bret wants to check?

>> UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.
> 
> Uh, no. AFAIK, none of his variations were ever "non-commercial only"
> (which would neither be "open source" [OSI] nor "Free" [FSF]).
> 
> "
>XMGR, RDISK, and UIDE are offered at no cost, "as is", "use at your own
>risk", and with NO warranties, not even the implied warranty of FITNESS
>for any particular purpose nor of MERCHANTABILITY!
> "
> 
> However, AFAIK, Jim (still) seems to think it would be better
> (overall) if we removed these. I don't personally know of any concrete
> legal reason to do so...

I would like to interpret that as "IF there would be drivers for
CD/DVD and UDMA with sufficient quality, THEN we would prefer to
use those instead of UIDE." However, there are none, so I would
really prefer to keep it! I would also prefer to keep RDISK, as
it is one of the smaller and better RAMDISK drivers. As Jack had
discussed possible (but very unlikely) contamination of XMGR by
him looking at Microsoft HIMEM sources, I agree that we can drop
XMGR. Note that he glanced at the sources AFTER his last update
to XMGR, so only future XMGR updates are actually at risk here.

Jim, are you okay with my interpretation of the current position?
I think it summarizes both off- as well as on-list conclusions.

, only some irrational rants and behavior from
> Jack himself.
> 
>> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.

Background are requirements from hardware vendors that he must
not widely distribute sources which do stuff based on "private"
hardware specs, I believe? UMBPCI is kind of cool but it would
be okay to do what Linux does with Microsoft fonts: Offer some
package which helps the user to download them from the vendor,
after showing the appropriate licensing dialogue.
Regards, Eric




--
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