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

[Don Flowers]

Finally, the problem and path to a solution in a nutshell,
I concur.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 PM, dmccunney 
> wrote:
> >
> > Going back to cases, what prompted this discussion was Rex Conn's open
> > source license for 4DOS, which indicated his source code couldn't be
> > used in a *commercial* product without contacting him.  There was a
> > question about including it with that restriction. I don't see that as
> > unreasonable, and it's actually standard practice in most cases.
>
> It's an unacceptable restriction to the "open source" (OSI) and "Free
> software" crowd, so they will shun the entire distribution (as they
> already have been, which means less redistribution, less forks, less
> improvements).
>
> Jim Hall is the FreeDOS project head and is heavily in favor of being
> as free/libre as possible. iBiblio and SF.net are both similarly
> minded (among others), so it doesn't make a lot of sense to go against
> the grain.
>
> But the DOS ecosystem (or whatever fractured mess is left) is so lazy,
> stubborn, and ignorant that it seems content to ignore the obvious
> hazards. I'm not really blaming anyone, but this situation is not very
> acceptable. Is it better than nothing? Sure, but so is living in a
> hole in the ground.
>
> We have to do better, if only because we need more developers. If we
> continue to piss them off for no good reason, then we're screwed.
>
> "FreeDOS" does not mean "FreewareDOS". That was never the goal, and
> you can't do much future work with only proprietary blobs.
>
> > The implicit assumption is that a commercial offering will be closed
> > source, and you must contact the author for permission to use it that
> > way.  And I would be flatly astonished if anyone ever *did* contact
> > Rex about using the 16 bit code he released as open source in a
> > commercial product.
>
> Even if you were correct, it's still not compatible with free/libre
> ideals, so any developers or users who adhere to those "four freedoms"
> will completely avoid FreeDOS (and call it "non-free").
>
> > For that matter, I strongly suspect there are license
> > incompatibilities between stuff currently offered with FreeDOS,  in
> > the sense that you may not be able to lift source from one project and
> > use it an another with a different license.
>
> There are rough edges in Linux, OpenBSD, modern x86 hardware, etc.
> There is no perfect system (AFAIK).
>
> Even just idle thinking, trying to make FreeDOS compatible for the
> below list, seems mindbogglingly impossible!
>
> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html
>
> Is FreeDOS perfect? No, far from it, but we aren't doing ourselves any
> favors by being lazy and stubborn. We can't keep making excuses. We
> have to change and improve.
>
> > Everything issued as part of a FreeDOS distro should be open source,
>
> The "BASE" should be free/libre (four freedoms), yes, that is Jim's goal.
>
> > offered under licenses that permit providing the source along with the
> > binaries.  Whether any of the sources may be incorporated in a
> > commercial product offered for sale will be governed by the specific
> > license under which the source is offered.  The same will be true for
> > whether any of the sources can be used in other projects offered under
> > a different license.  It should not be a factor in whether its offered
> > in a FreeDOS distribution.
>
> I just can't explain this any more clearly. FreeDOS must be "Free". It
> must do a better job of making clear what exactly is free/libre and
> what is not. I don't want to delete or throw away working software,
> even proprietary, but we need to heavily emphasize the free/libre
> stuff and deprecate anything that prevents us from widely
> redistributing. I'm not saying throw away 4DOS, but if it causes other
> people to shun the entire project then we need to rethink our goals.
> The less obstacles the better!
>
>
> --
> 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 

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

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
>
> Going back to cases, what prompted this discussion was Rex Conn's open
> source license for 4DOS, which indicated his source code couldn't be
> used in a *commercial* product without contacting him.  There was a
> question about including it with that restriction. I don't see that as
> unreasonable, and it's actually standard practice in most cases.

It's an unacceptable restriction to the "open source" (OSI) and "Free
software" crowd, so they will shun the entire distribution (as they
already have been, which means less redistribution, less forks, less
improvements).

Jim Hall is the FreeDOS project head and is heavily in favor of being
as free/libre as possible. iBiblio and SF.net are both similarly
minded (among others), so it doesn't make a lot of sense to go against
the grain.

But the DOS ecosystem (or whatever fractured mess is left) is so lazy,
stubborn, and ignorant that it seems content to ignore the obvious
hazards. I'm not really blaming anyone, but this situation is not very
acceptable. Is it better than nothing? Sure, but so is living in a
hole in the ground.

We have to do better, if only because we need more developers. If we
continue to piss them off for no good reason, then we're screwed.

"FreeDOS" does not mean "FreewareDOS". That was never the goal, and
you can't do much future work with only proprietary blobs.

> The implicit assumption is that a commercial offering will be closed
> source, and you must contact the author for permission to use it that
> way.  And I would be flatly astonished if anyone ever *did* contact
> Rex about using the 16 bit code he released as open source in a
> commercial product.

Even if you were correct, it's still not compatible with free/libre
ideals, so any developers or users who adhere to those "four freedoms"
will completely avoid FreeDOS (and call it "non-free").

> For that matter, I strongly suspect there are license
> incompatibilities between stuff currently offered with FreeDOS,  in
> the sense that you may not be able to lift source from one project and
> use it an another with a different license.

There are rough edges in Linux, OpenBSD, modern x86 hardware, etc.
There is no perfect system (AFAIK).

Even just idle thinking, trying to make FreeDOS compatible for the
below list, seems mindbogglingly impossible!

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html

Is FreeDOS perfect? No, far from it, but we aren't doing ourselves any
favors by being lazy and stubborn. We can't keep making excuses. We
have to change and improve.

> Everything issued as part of a FreeDOS distro should be open source,

The "BASE" should be free/libre (four freedoms), yes, that is Jim's goal.

> offered under licenses that permit providing the source along with the
> binaries.  Whether any of the sources may be incorporated in a
> commercial product offered for sale will be governed by the specific
> license under which the source is offered.  The same will be true for
> whether any of the sources can be used in other projects offered under
> a different license.  It should not be a factor in whether its offered
> in a FreeDOS distribution.

I just can't explain this any more clearly. FreeDOS must be "Free". It
must do a better job of making clear what exactly is free/libre and
what is not. I don't want to delete or throw away working software,
even proprietary, but we need to heavily emphasize the free/libre
stuff and deprecate anything that prevents us from widely
redistributing. I'm not saying throw away 4DOS, but if it causes other
people to shun the entire project then we need to rethink our goals.
The less obstacles the better!

--
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 17, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Tom Ehlert  wrote:
> 
>>CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.
> 
>>GCDROM - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Based on XCDROM, Removed.
> 
> GCDROM sources are available.
> 
> 
>>UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.
>>UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.
>>XCDROM - Removed.
> 
> 
> 
> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.
> 
> Tom

It still contains UDVD2, which can function as a CD-ROM driver.

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

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:52 PM, dmccunney  wrote:
>
> What we now face is a situation where work might *never* lapse into
> the public domain.
>
> The US is currently Life + 70 years.

Totally logical, you pinko commie swine! (extreme sarcasm)

> Canada is still Life + 50, and
> the Project Gutenberg Canada site is leading the fight to keep it that
> way.

Are you sure? I thought it was 60. I vaguely remember hearing that
_The Little Prince_ was public domain in Canada (but not U.S.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince#Extension_of_copyrights_in_France

Okay, this makes no sense, but who said it had to?  ;-)   I honestly
have no idea of their rationale behind this. Perhaps these kinds of
rules are meant to benefit the copyright holder's children??

> There are people making a good case it's time to simply abolish
> copyrights, as they largely no longer serve the original intended
> purpose.

Well, when the copyright holder is nowhere to be found, or it's proven
that you can't legally buy xyz anymore, then what good is
(effectively) throwing it away unused? Especially for software, which
ages faster (and thus loses value) worse than any other kind of work.

--
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, thanks for the response!

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Kenneth Davis  wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>
>> I notice that there is seemingly one bug / regression
>
> Try http://www.fdos.org/kernel/testing/truename/KERNEL.SYS

Using this one, everything seems fine (although more testing needed is
always a given).

--
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

[Tom Ehlert]

> CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.

> GCDROM - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Based on XCDROM, Removed.

GCDROM sources are available.


> UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.
> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.
> XCDROM - Removed.



an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.

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