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

[Ulrich Hansen]

And this is what Erick Engelke replied a few minutes ago.

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail:

> The authors all wanted to create free TCP implementations for everyone.
> GPL has some limitations that you can't sell some things, BSD is more free
> to my thinking, but not everyone agree.
> 
> I don't really care what people do with the WATCP software anymore.
> 
> E
> 
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Ulrich Hansen <


--
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

[Ulrich Hansen]

> 
> WATTCP is the only one remaining. 
> 

The license of WATTCP is a bit hard to find out. At the moment it is 
distributed by its author Erick Engelke at:
http://www.erickengelke.com/wattcp/ 

The license of this official version from 14. September 2015 is in the 
/include/copyrigh.h file. I append it as text further down this mail.

As I understand it, you can use the WATTCP library to produce commercial or 
open source software. The library itself is not allowed to be sold. This could 
conflict with FreeDOS, as some vendors in the past have bundled their hardware 
with FreeDOS which could be seen as commercial distribution.

In 2005 WATTCP was distributed by a site called http://www.wattcp.com/ 
. This site also sold the WATTCP manual. The download 
file was called wat1104.zip and included a copyrigh.h file which stated WATTCP 
was GNU LGPL. I also quote this text a bit further down in  this mail.

The FreeDOS site at 
http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp 

points to another version of WATTCP at 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/net/wattcp/ 


This version is from 05. June 2001 and includes a copyrigh.h file similar to 
the version from 2015.

All versions contain sources. As I see it, the relevant license is the one from 
September 2015.

I send this mail in BCC to Erick Engelcke in the hope, he might give us a hint 
if WATTCP can or should be distributed with FreeDOS.

Thanks a lot!




-- Copyright WATTCP 14. September 2015 


/*
 *   WATTCP - TCP/IP library routines
 *
 *   Copyright (c) 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 Erick Engelke
 *
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1993  Quentin Smart
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1990  National Center for Supercomputer Applications
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1990  Clarkson University
 *   Portions Copyright (c) 1983, 1986, Imagen Corporation
 *
 *  This software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 *  but without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of
 *  merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
 *
 *   RESTRICTIONS
 *   
 *   You may freely use this library to produce programs which you may give
 *   away or sell in source format, or as compiled executables, or both.
 *
 *   You may not sell this library or a portion thereof or distribute modified
 *   versions the library code in either source or OBJect or LIBrary format
 *   without written permission from the author.  The author still maintains
 *   copyright privileges and will assert the privileges of ownership for
 *   purposes of royalties such distributions.
 *
 *   Portions of this code were written or enhanced by others and offerred
 *   to me for distribution in WATTCP under my copyright.  To my knowledge,
 *   all copyrights exercised are listed at the top of this file.  If this
 *   is incorrect, please contact me so I can rectify the situation.
 *
 *
 *   OFFICIAL SITE
 *   -
 *   The official distribution site for WATTCP (and many other TCP goodies)
 *   is dorm.rutgers.edu in pub/msdos/wattcp  (thanks Jim!)
 *
 *   That is where I upload the latest libraries, my own free applications
 *   and other applications I have collected and find useful.
 *
 *
 *   DOCUMENTATION
 *   -
 *   A programmer's reference manual I wrote is now available from the
 *   publisher.  They provide no additional support and cannot help
 *   you with any aspect of the software.  But they do pay a royalty
 *   to me which has been used to compensate my costs for developing
 *   this software and extending it, so I am very appreciative.
 *
 *   That manual is copyrighted and protected by international law.
 *   It may not be copied without the authors permission.  And its
 *   sale does not constitute a warranty or an automatic license to
 *   use WATTCP beyond the terms described in this file.
 *
 *  WATTCP Manual
 *  www.wattcp.com
 *
 */
#define WATTCP_C "WATTCP_C"





-- Copyright WATTCP 02. November 2004 from WAT1104.zip 


/*
 *   WATTCP - TCP/IP library routines
 *
 *
 * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
 * Library General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public
 * License along with this library; if not, write to the
 * Free Software Foundation, 

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

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> Is DOSLFN going to be dropped? I don’t know. It is not up to me and my 
> opinion is not even relevant.
> I have not been informed of any decision to do so. The problem is its 
> licensing is unclear. There is no
> licensing information contained in its source files or with its binaries. It 
> may be Public Domain.
> I have no idea.

You'd have to email the two authors and ask for either clarification
or relicensing:  Henrik Haftmann and Jason Hood. I already pointed you
to the latter's webpage, but I understand if you don't want the
tedious burden of doing that.

If not, then just keep things simple, don't include it (by default);
instead, let users grab it by themselves. Not 100% ideal but certainly
less stressful.

> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All 
> works are Copyright at the
> moment of their creation.

That's not quite true. U.S. government officials are (sometimes?)
forced to keep their works and documents in the "public domain" (which
itself isn't a universally accepted idea). At least that's the
impression I got (from old TDE 4.0). And things may be different for
works predating the major law changes (1988? '70s??).

But I have no full grasp of the mess, and none of us are lawyers (or
can't afford to hire one full-time, certainly!). Sometimes I think
it's impossible to be perfect, too many obstacles, even when trying
our hardest.

> Regardless if it is declared or not. However, it is nearly impossible to 
> enforce
> a Copyright violation without said notice. But, would you like to see FreeDOS 
> sued into non-existence
> do to a minor copyright violation?

FreeDOS is not a legal entity, only a very unofficial loose-knit group
of volunteers. The cost of an initial lawsuit against us would most
likely outweigh our total assets! Literally nobody would win. However,
that doesn't mean we have the right to be lazy and sloppy. (Nor should
every spurious complaint be treated as valid.)

> Now in regards to my original quoted message. If DOSLFN is found to be 
> unsuitable, I will not be hunting down an alternative to it.

Honestly, it's probably dubious, "as is". So I don't blame you.
Certainly, VFAT patents don't expire for another year or two (2017?).
I hate to be the bringer of bad news or (accidentally, falsely) imply
that it's not legally suitable, as we've all used it for many years,
but it's probably not "perfect" by any stretch.

> Someone in either the freedos-user or devel group mentioned that there was 
> another program that did lfn and it was very buggy. I have no idea what it is 
> called.

I can only guess. The only ones I know, offhand, are LFNDOS (GPL) and
StarLFN (public domain). I haven't heavily used either, but I've
lightly dabbled with the latter (in non-VFAT mode only, LONGNAME.DAT a
la DESCRIPT.ION, which is somewhat slow when dealing with lots of
files).

> I have no idea if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable 
> alternative, it can be considered for inclusion.

I hate to be a pessimist, but it's just too much stress for too little
gain. DOS users should be used to 8.3 limitations. Some people (ahem,
DOS386) would even complain that it's not proper "DOS" software if it
can't handle SFNs properly (e.g. some DJGPP-compiled stuff, although
that's not DJGPP's fault, per se).

I doubt anybody here can really complain. All of us already have all
the DOS software we need. The FD 1.2 distro is meant for (presumably)
new users or those who haven't used DOS in a while. The diehards
already know where everything is, how to find and install it, etc.

--
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