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

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

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> And, CURL is now back. It’s sources were located. I also updated it.
> Hopefully, it is not broken.
>
> CURL - Listed as GPL, IT IS NOT GPL! It is less strict and is only
> copyrighted public domain. Included.

Even the official Curl website now points to (IMO, unreliable link)
M.K.'s recent (Dec. 2015) build of 7.46.0 (while latest is 7.49.0).

AFAIK, it is not broken, it supports "SSL SSH" (according to Curl's
download page). I did, minimally, use it once or twice. I could
definitely try it again, that's not hard to do (under QEMU or VBox).

Since Curl (unwisely?) decides to point *directly* to Mik's
(unreliable) webpage, it makes me want to mirror it to iBiblio.
Certainly the (main) license is presumably okay.

The problem is making sure it has all the (third-party source)
dependencies and making sure their licenses are acceptable. Which
unfortunately is hard to do since (AFAIK) rebuilding on or for DOS is
never easy for things like that. Maybe its makefile has improved
lately, but I haven't tried. And without an official "DOS" maintainer,
it's just too hard to guess on our own for every single file.

So it's just uncertain (as are most things that are complicated),
unfortunately. So I can't put any huge confidence in it, but it's
"probably" okay (or no worse than usual, just sloppy, sigh). I'd
really hate to guess blindly or make a mistake in this area.

N.B. I should probably ignore Curl (for now) and focus on CTMOUSE.ZIP
and JEMM.ZIP tomorrow instead. I said I would "fix" those, so I need
to do that, first and foremost.

> I have spent many many many hours fixing broken and incorrect packages. At
> least for now and the foreseeable future, I think I am done fixing them. I
> will be more than happy to include the remainder once they are fixed.

It may be a lost cause. Maybe having tons of third-party packages
included is a bad idea. There probably needs to be a smaller "core" of
FreeDOS that doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

--
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 - UMBPCI

[Don Flowers]

Yes, I see that now, I apologize for the sarcastic tone, I am a bit
frustrated, although I should not be surprised that this licensing phase
should become such a "sticky wicket."

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Eric Auer  wrote:

>
> Hi Don,
>
> >> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.
> >
> > http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
> >   * Conditions and Download*
> > The original version came from the german magazine c't
> > , but there were several problems and no free
> > updates. This version is based upon the source-code
> >  published by c't in 1995
> which
> > supported only intel chipsets up to the 430FX.
>
> The original version is totally ancient and only supports a rather
> small set of older mainboards.
>
> > It's Freeware.
> >
> > Download:
> > http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip
> >
> > Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.
> >
> > No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source
> code?
>
> The problem is that - as far as I remember! - newer versions of UMBPCI
> contain driver code for modern hardware which required the UMBPCI author
> to agree to not make the details of the hardware totally public. So the
> source code is available on request for individual UMBPCI users, not for
> distribution to everybody who downloads our distro or repository. Please
> correct me if I remember wrongly.
>
> 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
>
--
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 - UMBPCI

[Eric Auer]

Hi Don,

>> UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.
> 
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
>   * Conditions and Download*
> The original version came from the german magazine c't
> , but there were several problems and no free
> updates. This version is based upon the source-code
>  published by c't in 1995 which
> supported only intel chipsets up to the 430FX.

The original version is totally ancient and only supports a rather
small set of older mainboards.

> It's Freeware.
> 
> Download:
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip
> 
> Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.
> 
> No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source code?

The problem is that - as far as I remember! - newer versions of UMBPCI
contain driver code for modern hardware which required the UMBPCI author
to agree to not make the details of the hardware totally public. So the
source code is available on request for individual UMBPCI users, not for
distribution to everybody who downloads our distro or repository. Please
correct me if I remember wrongly.

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

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

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

> On May 19, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Louis Santillan  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  
> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All 
>> works are Copyright at the moment of their creation. 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?
>> 
>> 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.  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 have no idea if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable 
>> alternative, it can be considered for inclusion.
> 
> I finally found a(n obvious) term for DOSLFN's situation, License-Free
> Software [0].  This means source is unmarked with license and/or
> copyright info.  And if you believe DJB's judicial reasoning, placing
> the code on the net, demonstrating how to use the software "creates"
> an implied license with similar restrictions to Public Domain software
> 
> Food for thought.
> 
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software 
> 

Sounds good to me.

Thanks

--
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

[perditionc]

Some replies intermixed, on my phone so hopefully readable.

On May 19, 2016 3:33 PM, "Don Flowers"  wrote:
>
> >UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.
>
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
>   Conditions and Download
> The original version came from the german magazine c't, but there were
several problems and no free updates. This version is based upon the
source-code published by c't in 1995 which supported only intel chipsets up
to the 430FX.
>
> It's Freeware.
>
> Download:
> http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip
>
> Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.
>
>
> No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source
code?
>

I have in the past, however it is for an older version and if memory serves
it is preferred to retrieve from origin to avoid using outdated version.  I
will eventually ask for an updated version, but we should respect authors
wishes and not make available without explicit permission as as it can
still be obtained from origin.  (I fully believe local mirrors of DOS
software are important as sites disappear all the time)

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
wrote:
>>
>> Hello Eric and all,
>>
>> First, I went through the couple old 1.1 packages that were not on the
update repo. They were buried elsewhere on ibiblio.
>>
>> So, at present these will be included on big USB but are not currently
installed under ALL or BASE.
>>
>> RIPCORD

This should not be included.  It is specific to defunct ripcord (beta)
releases.  It is public domain (from me).  It included version information
now fully replaced by LSMs in packages.

>> DOSUTIL, also updated  to latest version.
>> SYSLINUX, 4.x, there is a 6.x version available if someone wants to
build it, probably should add this to ALL.
>> FLASHROM
>> FDSHIELD, updated to latest version.
>> CALLVER, probably should add this to base.
>> SAMCFG

Yes this just a sample/documented config.sys file.  It is also public
domain I think (also originated from me - I can't recall if it includes any
copyrighted comments ie examples I borrowed and can't read it currently to
check.)

>>
>>

Thank you for all your work, I know how time consuming it can be.

Jeremy
--
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

[Louis Santillan]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> 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.
>
> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. All 
> works are Copyright at the moment of their creation. 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?
>
> 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.  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 have no idea if it is buggy. If you would like to find a suitable 
> alternative, it can be considered for inclusion.

I finally found a(n obvious) term for DOSLFN's situation, License-Free
Software [0].  This means source is unmarked with license and/or
copyright info.  And if you believe DJB's judicial reasoning, placing
the code on the net, demonstrating how to use the software "creates"
an implied license with similar restrictions to Public Domain software

Food for thought.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_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 Package LSM Data Verification

[Don Flowers]

>UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Not Included.

http://www.uwe-sieber.de/umbpci_e.html
  * Conditions and Download*
The original version came from the german magazine c't
, but there were several problems and no free
updates. This version is based upon the source-code
 published by c't in 1995 which
supported only intel chipsets up to the 430FX.

It's Freeware.

Download:
http://www.uwe-sieber.de/files/umbpci_e.zip

Source code (TASM 3.x) is available on request.


No one in the history of FreeDOS ever bothered to request this source code?

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. 
wrote:

> Hello Eric and all,
>
> First, I went through the couple old 1.1 packages that were not on the
> update repo. They were buried elsewhere on ibiblio.
>
> So, at present these will be included on big USB but are not currently
> installed under ALL or BASE.
>
> RIPCORD
> DOSUTIL, also updated  to latest version.
> SYSLINUX, 4.x, there is a 6.x version available if someone wants to build
> it, probably should add this to ALL.
> FLASHROM
> FDSHIELD, updated to latest version.
> CALLVER, probably should add this to base.
> SAMCFG
>
> UPX had not gone away, it was it the DEVEL group. I just missed seeing it
> when compiling the list.
>
> And, CURL is now back. It’s sources were located. I also updated it.
> Hopefully, it is not broken.
>
> WATTCP is the only one remaining.
>
> I have spent many many many hours fixing broken and incorrect packages. At
> least for now and the foreseeable future, I think I am done fixing them. I
> will be more than happy to include the remainder once they are fixed.
>
> On May 19, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Eric Auer  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable
> packages are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of
>
>
> Please cite the beginning-of-this-thread snippet, it is a long thread.
>
> packages shipped with 1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these
> packages are on the ibiblio repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not
> put any work into trying to include these packages as of yet.
>
>
> Do you mean they were part of the 1.1 distro but not of the 1.1 repo?
>
>
> Yes, however some are elsewhere on ibiblio.
>
>
> DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos
>
>
> What is the content of that package?
>
> RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested.
>
>
> Indeed probably specific to the 1.1 distort.
>
>
> For now, included. I will try it out prior to next release.
>
>
> SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.
>
>
> Sounds like a sample config, which could be useful to include.
> Of course if you find some settings which are no longer valid
> for updated drivers, it would be cool to update those, but I
> would say that the 1.1 sample config should still be valid :-)
>
> SYSLNX There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.
>
>
> Syslinux? That sounds pretty important.
>
>
> Probably, someone should really update it.
>
>
> WATTCP, No Source files present
>
>
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp says that would
> be the place to be. The wat2001b.zip indeed does have sources.
>
> CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1
>
>
> Maybe you mean FDSHIELD: www.freedos.org/software/?prog=fdshield
> This does include sources.
>
> http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/ has
> a copy of CALLVER 2007-aug19.zip which includes sourcs.
>
> I am not sure what FLASHR is, maybe a tool to update firmware?
>
> For UPX, the version with UPX-UCL library should be used, because
> it has the more free/libre license compared to the UPX NRV default:
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=upx-ucl (a very nice tool!)
>
> Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never
> shipped with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.
>
>
> This probably means that they got added to the distro after 1.1, in
> the hope that they will be included in the FreeDOS 1.2 distro. The
> users were able to install through the repository in the meantime.
>
> FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the
> slim USB and 232 on the big USB.
>
>
> That is really cool, thanks :-)
>
> By the way, it is good to have full 8.3 file names for packages now,
> the "X" and "S" distinction in the repo makes it hard to find stuff
> which normally has 8 char names but has to squeeze in the "X" suffix.
>
> Regards, Eric
>
>
>
> Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS
> 1.1, all 80 of them.
>
>
> Base: Append Assign Attrib Cdrcach(e) Chkdsk Choice Command Comp
> Cpidos Ctmouse Cwsdpmi Debug Defrag Deltree Devload Diskc(o)py
> Display Dosfsck D(i)skcomp Edit Edlin Exe2bin Fasth(e)lp Fc Fdapm
> Fdisk Fdpkg Fdupdat(e) Find Format Fourdos (4dos) F(d)xms286
> Graphic(s) Help Himemx Infozip Install Jemmex 

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

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello Eric and all,

First, I went through the couple old 1.1 packages that were not on the update 
repo. They were buried elsewhere on ibiblio.

So, at present these will be included on big USB but are not currently 
installed under ALL or BASE.

RIPCORD
DOSUTIL, also updated  to latest version.
SYSLINUX, 4.x, there is a 6.x version available if someone wants to build it, 
probably should add this to ALL.
FLASHROM
FDSHIELD, updated to latest version.
CALLVER, probably should add this to base.
SAMCFG

UPX had not gone away, it was it the DEVEL group. I just missed seeing it when 
compiling the list.

And, CURL is now back. It’s sources were located. I also updated it. Hopefully, 
it is not broken.

WATTCP is the only one remaining. 

I have spent many many many hours fixing broken and incorrect packages. At 
least for now and the foreseeable future, I think I am done fixing them. I will 
be more than happy to include the remainder once they are fixed. 

> On May 19, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Eric Auer  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Jerome,
> 
>> Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable
>> packages are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of
> 
> Please cite the beginning-of-this-thread snippet, it is a long thread.
> 
>> packages shipped with 1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these
>> packages are on the ibiblio repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not
>> put any work into trying to include these packages as of yet.
> 
> Do you mean they were part of the 1.1 distro but not of the 1.1 repo?

Yes, however some are elsewhere on ibiblio.

> 
>> DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos
> 
> What is the content of that package?
> 
>> RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested.
> 
> Indeed probably specific to the 1.1 distort.

For now, included. I will try it out prior to next release.

> 
>> SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.
> 
> Sounds like a sample config, which could be useful to include.
> Of course if you find some settings which are no longer valid
> for updated drivers, it would be cool to update those, but I
> would say that the 1.1 sample config should still be valid :-)
> 
>> SYSLNX There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.
> 
> Syslinux? That sounds pretty important.

Probably, someone should really update it.

> 
>> WATTCP, No Source files present
> 
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp 
>  says that would
> be the place to be. The wat2001b.zip indeed does have sources.
> 
>> CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1
> 
> Maybe you mean FDSHIELD: www.freedos.org/software/?prog=fdshield 
> 
> This does include sources.
> 
> http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/ 
>  has
> a copy of CALLVER 2007-aug19.zip which includes sourcs.
> 
> I am not sure what FLASHR is, maybe a tool to update firmware?
> 
> For UPX, the version with UPX-UCL library should be used, because
> it has the more free/libre license compared to the UPX NRV default:
> http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=upx-ucl 
>  (a very nice tool!)
> 
>> Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never
>> shipped with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.
> 
> This probably means that they got added to the distro after 1.1, in
> the hope that they will be included in the FreeDOS 1.2 distro. The
> users were able to install through the repository in the meantime.
> 
>> FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the
>> slim USB and 232 on the big USB.
> 
> That is really cool, thanks :-)
> 
> By the way, it is good to have full 8.3 file names for packages now,
> the "X" and "S" distinction in the repo makes it hard to find stuff
> which normally has 8 char names but has to squeeze in the "X" suffix.
> 
> Regards, Eric
> 
> 
> 
>> Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS
>> 1.1, all 80 of them.
> 
> Base: Append Assign Attrib Cdrcach(e) Chkdsk Choice Command Comp
> Cpidos Ctmouse Cwsdpmi Debug Defrag Deltree Devload Diskc(o)py
> Display Dosfsck D(i)skcomp Edit Edlin Exe2bin Fasth(e)lp Fc Fdapm
> Fdisk Fdpkg Fdupdat(e) Find Format Fourdos (4dos) F(d)xms286
> Graphic(s) Help Himemx Infozip Install Jemmex Kernel Keyb Label
> Lbacach(e) Localiz(e) Mem Mirror Mode More Move Mtcp Nansi Nlsfunc
> Printq Print Recover Replace Ripcord Samcfg Share Shsucdx Sort
> Subst Tree Uide Undel(ete) Unf(or)m(a)t Usbdos Xcopy Xmgr Dosutil
> 
> Boot: Sysl(i)n(u)x
> 
> GUI: Fdshell (?)
> 
> Net: Wattcp Wget
> 
> Util: Bootfix Callver Doslfn  Flashr Fdshield Upx Vmsmnt
> 
>> And here is the list of packages on the Large USB Stick.
>> All, 232 of them.

This is a repost/updated not included and problem 

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

[Eric Auer]

Hi Jerome,

> Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable
> packages are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of

Please cite the beginning-of-this-thread snippet, it is a long thread.

> packages shipped with 1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these
> packages are on the ibiblio repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not
> put any work into trying to include these packages as of yet.

Do you mean they were part of the 1.1 distro but not of the 1.1 repo?

> DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos

What is the content of that package?

> RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested.

Indeed probably specific to the 1.1 distro.

> SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.

Sounds like a sample config, which could be useful to include.
Of course if you find some settings which are no longer valid
for updated drivers, it would be cool to update those, but I
would say that the 1.1 sample config should still be valid :-)

> SYSLNX There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.

Syslinux? That sounds pretty important.

> WATTCP, No Source files present

http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=wattcp says that would
be the place to be. The wat2001b.zip indeed does have sources.

> CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1

Maybe you mean FDSHIELD: www.freedos.org/software/?prog=fdshield
This does include sources.

http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/ has
a copy of CALLVER 2007-aug19.zip which includes sourcs.

I am not sure what FLASHR is, maybe a tool to update firmware?

For UPX, the version with UPX-UCL library should be used, because
it has the more free/libre license compared to the UPX NRV default:
http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=upx-ucl (a very nice tool!)

> Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never
> shipped with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.

This probably means that they got added to the distro after 1.1, in
the hope that they will be included in the FreeDOS 1.2 distro. The
users were able to install through the repository in the meantime.

> FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the
> slim USB and 232 on the big USB.

That is really cool, thanks :-)

By the way, it is good to have full 8.3 file names for packages now,
the "X" and "S" distinction in the repo makes it hard to find stuff
which normally has 8 char names but has to squeeze in the "X" suffix.

Regards, Eric



> Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS
> 1.1, all 80 of them.

Base: Append Assign Attrib Cdrcach(e) Chkdsk Choice Command Comp
Cpidos Ctmouse Cwsdpmi Debug Defrag Deltree Devload Diskc(o)py
Display Dosfsck D(i)skcomp Edit Edlin Exe2bin Fasth(e)lp Fc Fdapm
Fdisk Fdpkg Fdupdat(e) Find Format Fourdos (4dos) F(d)xms286
Graphic(s) Help Himemx Infozip Install Jemmex Kernel Keyb Label
Lbacach(e) Localiz(e) Mem Mirror Mode More Move Mtcp Nansi Nlsfunc
Printq Print Recover Replace Ripcord Samcfg Share Shsucdx Sort
Subst Tree Uide Undel(ete) Unf(or)m(a)t Usbdos Xcopy Xmgr Dosutil

Boot: Sysl(i)n(u)x

GUI: Fdshell (?)

Net: Wattcp Wget

Util: Bootfix Callver Doslfn  Flashr Fdshield Upx Vmsmnt

> And here is the list of packages on the Large USB Stick.
> All, 232 of them.

[see original mail]


--
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

[Dale E Sterner]

You can call the copyright office and have them do a search (its not
free)
If they don't find anything registered then its pretty much open
season for that software. You have to pay by the hour (labor) for a
search.


DS



On Wed, 18 May 2016 18:22:02 -0400 Jerome E. Shidel Jr.
 writes:
> 
> > On May 18, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Tom Ehlert  
> wrote:
> > 
> >>> 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.
> > 
> > THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
> > 
> > one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
> > 
> > bye
> > 
> > Tom.
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I understand you may have strong feelings regarding this subject. 
> However, name calling, labels, slander, racism and other 
> inflammatory and degrading remarks are unacceptable behavior. I have 
> zero tolerance for such games. 
> 
> Now, my opinion regarding open source. Could not care less. I have 
> written and released Public Domain, Open Source, Freeware, Trialware 
> and Extremely Copy-protected software and have every intention of 
> doing so in the future. The only type I have not done is Shareware 
> and even that is not do to some moral objection. I just don’t 
> think that model works as intended.
> 
> For the packages that are to be included with the next OS release, I 
> have been given several directives. Among those are that the 
> software package should be open source and its sources need to be 
> included. Public domain software is less restrictive than open 
> source. So as long as its source is present, it is fine that that 
> type of software is included. Other software that places additional 
> restrictions on use, do not fit the given requirements. Exceptions 
> may be made. But, that decision is not up to me. I have a moral 
> obligation to evaluate all of the packages and insure they meet the 
> requirements I was given. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Freely available source is not Open Source and is not Public Domain. 
> All works are Copyright at the moment of their creation. 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?
> 
> 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.  
> 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 have no idea if it is buggy. If you 
> would like to find a suitable alternative, it can be considered for 
> 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


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


ABP Tactical
This Pen Could Save Your Life
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573dc7cede54f47ce78c1st01duc

--
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.]

Eric, 

> On May 18, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Eric Auer  > wrote:
> 
> 
> I would like to agree with Tom: It is good that FreeDOS comes
> with a nice collection of drivers for modern hardware! Those
> times when a DOS driver was included when people bought their
> CD drive have long passed. Also, there are no reasons to limit
> our distro to those minimal features of a few MS DOS disks ;-)

I am more than happy to include any suitable open source drivers.

> 
>>> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
>>> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.
>> 
>> I think that the key is to perceive FreeDOS as a replacement to MSDOS, 
>> nothing else (that is, "BASE")...
> 
> It is good to have a BASE download (probably with "live CD" or
> "live USB stick" function, not requiring but allowing install
> to other disks) if you want a basic no-nonsense system. Still
> I would like to see drivers included even in such a download.
> 
>> But then, for actually useful (practical) stuff, one has to rely on a 
>> FreeDOS distribution, like Svarog386, or collect the required "non-free" 
>> bits by hand over the internet.
> 
> It also is good to have a FreeDOS distro which contains a pile
> of nice useful free software, if possible fully open source. I
> think IBIBLIO also requires open source for the file hosting.
> 
> I would NOT want the FreeDOS distro to be limited by extremely
> specific license taste. As far as I am concerned, GPL 2 and 3,
> MIT, Artistic license, BSD license, public domain etc. are all
> perfectly fine for inclusion of packages in our normal distro.
> 
>> Otherwise I agree it can get a bit frustrating for actual users,
>> and that's the reason I started Svarog386 in the first place.
> 
> Looking at your package listing, Svarog386 is quite nice, but we
> should not give up the hope of having a nice plain FreeDOS distro.
> 
> Jerome, could you make a list of packages which existed in either
> FreeDOS 1.0 or 1.1 but are not currently included in 1.2, along
> with the reason for exclusion? I think we should indeed be a bit
> more generous regarding inclusion of packages! Thanks :-)
> 
> Regards, Eric
> 

Except for the following packages all other dropped and questionable packages 
are listed at the beginning of this thread. This list of packages shipped with 
1.1 and are not presently in 1.2. None of these packages are on the ibiblio 
repo for version 1.1 either.  I have not put any work into trying to include 
these packages as of yet.

DOSUTIL, No sources present in package. Might be buried on repos somewhere.
RIPCORD, FreeDOS release related program, Compatibility not tested. 
SAMCFG, I don’t know if it is applicable anymore.
SYSLNX, There has to be a newer version, not in repo for 1.1.
WATTCP, No Source files present
CALLVER, FLASHR, SHIELD and UPX not in repo for 1.1

Almost all of the dropped packages in the top of this thread, never shipped 
with FreeDOS. However, they are on the Repo for v1.1.

FreeDOS 1.1 shipped with 80 packages total, 1.2 ships with 97 the slim USB and 
232 on the big USB.


Well, this was the complete list of packages included with FreeDOS 1.1, all 80 
of them.

BASE\APPENDX
BASE\ASSIGNX
BASE\ATTRIBX
BASE\CDRCACHX
BASE\CHKDSKX
BASE\CHOICEX
BASE\COMMANDX
BASE\COMPX
BASE\CPIDOSX
BASE\CTMOUSEX
BASE\CWSDPMIX
BASE\DEBUGX
BASE\DEFRAG
BASE\DELTREEX
BASE\DEVLOADX
BASE\DISKCPYX
BASE\DISPLAYX
BASE\DOSFSCKX
BASE\DSKCOMPX
BASE\EDITX
BASE\EDLINX
BASE\EXE2BINX
BASE\FASTHLPX
BASE\FCX
BASE\FDAPMX
BASE\FDISKX
BASE\FDPKGX
BASE\FDUPDATX
BASE\FINDX
BASE\FORMATX
BASE\FOURDOSX
BASE\FXMS286X
BASE\GRAPHICX
BASE\HELPX
BASE\HIMEMXX
BASE\INFOZIPX
BASE\INSTALLX
BASE\JEMMEXX
BASE\KERNELX
BASE\KEYBX
BASE\LABELX
BASE\LBACACHX
BASE\LOCALIZX
BASE\MEMX
BASE\MIRRORX
BASE\MODEX
BASE\MOREX
BASE\MOVEX
BASE\MTCPX
BASE\NANSI
BASE\NLSFUNCX
BASE\PRINTQX
BASE\PRINTX
BASE\RECOVERX
BASE\REPLACEX
BASE\RIPCORDX
BASE\SAMCFGX
BASE\SHAREX
BASE\SHSUCDXX
BASE\SORTX
BASE\SUBSTX
BASE\TREEX
BASE\UIDEX
BASE\UNDELX
BASE\UNFMTX
BASE\USBDOSX
BASE\XCOPYX
BASE\XMGRX
BOOT\SYSLNXX
GUI\FDSHELLX
NET\WATTCPX
NET\WGETX
BASE\DOSUTILX
UTIL\BOOTFIXX
UTIL\CALLVERX
UTIL\DOSLFNX
UTIL\FLASHRX
UTIL\FSHIELDX
UTIL\UPXX
UTIL\VMSMNTX

And here is the list of packages on the Large USB Stick. All, 232 of them.

; BASE Packages

archiver\unzip
archiver\zip
base\append
base\assign
base\attrib
base\chkdsk
base\choice
base\command
base\comp
base\cpidos
base\ctmouse
base\debug
base\defrag
base\deltree
base\devload
base\diskcomp
base\diskcopy
base\display
base\dosfsck
base\edit
base\edlin
base\exe2bin
base\fc
base\fdapm
base\fdisk
base\fdxms
base\fdxms286
base\find
base\format
base\help
base\himemx
base\jemm
base\kernel32
base\keyb
base\keyb_lay
base\label
base\lbacache
base\mem
base\mirror
base\mkeyb
base\mode
base\more
base\move
base\nansi
base\nlsfunc
base\print
base\recover
base\replace
base\share
base\shsucdx
base\sort
base\swsubst
base\tree
base\undelete

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

[Jerome E . Shidel Jr .]

> On May 18, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Tom Ehlert  wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
> 
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
> 
> bye
> 
> Tom.

Tom,

I understand you may have strong feelings regarding this subject. However, name 
calling, labels, slander, racism and other inflammatory and degrading remarks 
are unacceptable behavior. I have zero tolerance for such games. 

Now, my opinion regarding open source. Could not care less. I have written and 
released Public Domain, Open Source, Freeware, Trialware and Extremely 
Copy-protected software and have every intention of doing so in the future. The 
only type I have not done is Shareware and even that is not do to some moral 
objection. I just don’t think that model works as intended.

For the packages that are to be included with the next OS release, I have been 
given several directives. Among those are that the software package should be 
open source and its sources need to be included. Public domain software is less 
restrictive than open source. So as long as its source is present, it is fine 
that that type of software is included. Other software that places additional 
restrictions on use, do not fit the given requirements. Exceptions may be made. 
But, that decision is not up to me. I have a moral obligation to evaluate all 
of the packages and insure they meet the requirements I was given. 

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. 

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

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

[Alain Mouette]

Please, beware of  Stallmanitis, it is a serious desease and highly 
contagious.

In the particular case of FreeDOS it bad, at the time of DOS programs 
were free but GPL was not widely known

Alain


On 18-05-2016 11:12, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>>> 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.
> THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
>
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
>
> bye
>
> 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


--
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]

I would like to agree with Tom: It is good that FreeDOS comes
with a nice collection of drivers for modern hardware! Those
times when a DOS driver was included when people bought their
CD drive have long passed. Also, there are no reasons to limit
our distro to those minimal features of a few MS DOS disks ;-)

>> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
>> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.
> 
> I think that the key is to perceive FreeDOS as a replacement to MSDOS, 
> nothing else (that is, "BASE")...

It is good to have a BASE download (probably with "live CD" or
"live USB stick" function, not requiring but allowing install
to other disks) if you want a basic no-nonsense system. Still
I would like to see drivers included even in such a download.

> But then, for actually useful (practical) stuff, one has to rely on a 
> FreeDOS distribution, like Svarog386, or collect the required "non-free" 
> bits by hand over the internet.

It also is good to have a FreeDOS distro which contains a pile
of nice useful free software, if possible fully open source. I
think IBIBLIO also requires open source for the file hosting.

I would NOT want the FreeDOS distro to be limited by extremely
specific license taste. As far as I am concerned, GPL 2 and 3,
MIT, Artistic license, BSD license, public domain etc. are all
perfectly fine for inclusion of packages in our normal distro.

> Otherwise I agree it can get a bit frustrating for actual users,
> and that's the reason I started Svarog386 in the first place.

Looking at your package listing, Svarog386 is quite nice, but we
should not give up the hope of having a nice plain FreeDOS distro.

Jerome, could you make a list of packages which existed in either
FreeDOS 1.0 or 1.1 but are not currently included in 1.2, along
with the reason for exclusion? I think we should indeed be a bit
more generous regarding inclusion of packages! Thanks :-)

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

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

[Mateusz Viste]

On 17/05/2016 14:23, Tom Ehlert wrote:
> an operating system without CDROM and network drivers doesn't sound
> very useful to me, even if everything has the correct license. YMMV.

I think that the key is to perceive FreeDOS as a replacement to MSDOS, 
nothing else (that is, "BASE"). The legalese on these things can be a 
bit confusing, so I believe that the extreme caution that FreeDOS 
applies in this area is legitimate.

But then, for actually useful (practical) stuff, one has to rely on a 
FreeDOS distribution, like Svarog386, or collect the required "non-free" 
bits by hand over the internet.

Otherwise I agree it can get a bit frustrating for actual users, and 
that's the reason I started Svarog386 in the first place.

Mateusz


--
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

[Marco Achury]

Please illustrate me:

Define Stallmanitis

El 5/18/2016 a las 9:12 AM, Tom Ehlert escribió:
>>> 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.
> THIS.IS.RIDICULOUS.
>
> one of the worst manifestations of Stallmanitis ever.
>
> bye
>
> 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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
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]

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 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

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

[dmccunney]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:

> 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 

I think we are talking past each other, but...

> 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).

The key for Gibson was that he could pick up and use the FreeDOS
*binaries* to create a bootable floppy from which Spinrite could be
run without special license or cost.. The fact that he could get
*source* was likely irrelevant.  If a version of MS/PC/DR DOS was
freely available for reuse in binary format without licensing
requirements or cost, it likely would have gotten the nod.

>> 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.

See above about reasons for using FreeDOS.  I don't argue that.  What
we are specifically discussing is the licenses that will let various
open source programs be distributed as part of an actual FreeDOS
distribution.

>> 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).

Which it appears Gibson may be doing going forward.

Part of the issue is that the floppy is an endangered species.  My
current desktop doesn't have one.  I have a USB floppy drive I can
plug in, and it's recognized as A: and will work, but I've never had
reason to use it.

Most software these days simply won't fit on a floppy, and gets
distributed on media as a CD or DVD, or as an ISO file that can be
burned to one ot to a USB thumb drive. Machines can be told to boot
from them.  For that matter, when I installed Ubuntu on my desktop in
dual-boot mode with Windows, I migrated the original Win7 Pro
distribution from hard drive to SSD.  Once it was up and running from
SSD, I re-partitioned the SSD drive from Windows to clear a raw slice,
burned the Ubuntu ISO to a bootable USB thumb drive, and rebooted and
ran Ubuntu from the thumb drive. It saw and installed to the raw slice
on the SSD, creating the desired ext4 file system for Ubuntu to live
on and run from.  The end result was a multi-boot configuration using
grub2 giving me a choice of Ubuntu, Windows on the SSD, or Windows on
the HD to boot from.  I've subsequently upgraded from Win7 Pro to
Win10 Pro on the SSD, and my multi-boot menu is Ubuntu, Win10 on SSD,
and Win7 on HD.

Floppies are unlikely to be part of systems Spinrite will be run on
these days, so a bootable floppy containing it will be irrelevant, and
FreeDOS unnecessary.

>> 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).

Unfortunately, nitpicking gets required.  There are a variety of
licenses under which source code is offered along with programs built
from the source.  Some of the licenses are incompatible with each
other, which means code you see in one open source project may be
something you can't *use* in yours, because the license under which it
is issued won't permit it.

This sort of thing makes 

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

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09 PM, John R. Sowden
 wrote:
> I understand your comments re: certain type of Ubuntu software.  Ubuntu is
> also worried about providing restricted software and its legal problems for
> a deep pocket.  My comment is in regards to the bandwidth consumption re:
> different tweaks of the license.  Just keep the squeaky clean stuff in the
> main install program, and reference the rest in a separate .zip with the
> appropriate caveats.

Ubuntu has the right to offer it, or wouldn't proceed.

But the Linux community has strong feelings about the issue, and there
are those who will vociferously object to including anything that you
can't get source for.  Canonical, Ubuntu's parent, handles the issue
by carefully separating free and non-free, and making non-free an
option the user can choose to accept.  The default is free software
only.

For that matter, Ubuntu's default GUI is Unity, an attempt at a
"one-size-fits-all" interface that scales from a small screen device
like a tablet to a big monitor.  Ubuntu is the closest thing to a
standard Linux distro these days, because Canonical has taken pains to
produce a distro that figures out what it's being installed on, sets
itself up, and Just Works with minimal involvement from the user.
(That's why I installed it.  I've worked with other distros where
things like video and networking were pains to configure.  With
Ubuntu, I didn't have to.  I could spend my time using it, not
fiddling to *make* it usable.)

One of the things on the default Unity desktop was a link to Amazon.
People screamed bloody murder about it being there.  (It's trivial to
remove.)  Gee, folks.  If you want Linux to be an acceptable choice
for a home machine, it needs to be able to do things home users are
likely to do, and one of those things will be shop at Amazon.  But the
more fanatical and self-righteous members of the community don't seem
to grasp that.

With something like Ubuntu, bandwidth isn't a great concern.  The
implicit assumption is that folks running it have broadband.

For something like FreeDOS, it might be.  My default for a FreeDOS
distro might be "binaries only".  Most folks don't need and couldn't
use the source, so why make it part of the package?  It *should* be
available from the same place you get the base distro, and you can get
it if you need it, but there's no requirement to provide it as part of
the base distro.

The question came up a while back on another open source list, as "Do
I have to provide source for my open source offering with my
binaries?"  The stuff in question was all GPLed code.  My response
was, "No, you don't.  Most folks don't need and can't use the source.
They just want the binaries and docs.  But the essence of the GPL is
that you will *provide* the source if requested, in a form convenient
for the user, and you must *tell* the user you will do so and provide
the source on request."

(It must also be the source you used to create the binaries.  The
intent is that the user can reproduce your build environment, get your
source, and produce a duplicate of what you provided.  So you can't
just point them at your repository, because you've likely made changes
since you issued your binaries, and what the user will get if they
pull from the repository won't be the same code you built from.
Either package it separately for distribution, or provide links to
your repository for the specific revision level you used in building
you code.)

> John
__
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

[John R. Sowden]

I understand your comments re: certain type of Ubuntu software.  Ubuntu 
is also worried about providing restricted software and its legal 
problems for a deep pocket.  My comment is in regards to the bandwidth 
consumption re: different tweaks of the license.  Just keep the squeaky 
clean stuff in the main install program, and reference the rest in a 
separate .zip with the appropriate caveats.


John


On 05/16/2016 06:31 PM, dmccunney wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:44 PM, John R. Sowden
 wrote:

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?

Ubuntu draws a distinction between "free" and "non-free" software, and
the distinction I know is whether source is available.

The non-free stuff tends to be things like drivers.  For instance,
AMD/ATI and Nvidia both offer Linux drivers for their video cards, but
do *not* provide driver source.  You use them if you have special
needs the generic open source video drivers bundled with Ubuntu don't
handle.  (You are likely a gamer if you have needs like that.)

I have an older AMD/ATI card in my dual boot desktop.  It has a
current ATI driver on the Windows side, but uses the generic Linux
drivers under Ubuntu.

(On an older machine, I did once resort to ndiswrapper, a *nix utility
that let me use Windows drivers in Linux, to get full support for the
hardware on the machine Linux was multi-booting on.)


John
Still a Wordstar/FoxPro 2.6 User

__
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




--
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 7:44 PM, John R. Sowden
 wrote:
> 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?

Ubuntu draws a distinction between "free" and "non-free" software, and
the distinction I know is whether source is available.

The non-free stuff tends to be things like drivers.  For instance,
AMD/ATI and Nvidia both offer Linux drivers for their video cards, but
do *not* provide driver source.  You use them if you have special
needs the generic open source video drivers bundled with Ubuntu don't
handle.  (You are likely a gamer if you have needs like that.)

I have an older AMD/ATI card in my dual boot desktop.  It has a
current ATI driver on the Windows side, but uses the generic Linux
drivers under Ubuntu.

(On an older machine, I did once resort to ndiswrapper, a *nix utility
that let me use Windows drivers in Linux, to get full support for the
hardware on the machine Linux was multi-booting on.)

> John
> Still a Wordstar/FoxPro 2.6 User
__
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

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Corbin Davenport  wrote:
> The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement extends copyright laws for all countries
> involved, but to my knowledge it's not in force yet.

It's not.  See the Project Gutenberg Canada website at
http://gutenberg.ca/#h2newreleases for more than you might want to
know about opposition to it.

> Corbin
__
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

[dmccunney]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Dale E Sterner  wrote:
> I stand corrected. What I heard was that senator Sonie Bono had the law
> extended.

Senator Bono (one half of pop music duo Sonny and Cher) had ties to
the entertainment industry, and pushed for life of copyright to be
extended.  As mentioned, DisneyCo was unhappy because the original
conception of Mickey Mouse was about to fall into the public domain.

> The europeans went a step futher and extended it even
> futher. I was talking to a woman who writes music and
> she said she had to renew every couple of years for
> a very small fee. What I don't understand is why copyrights
> last so much longer than patents Patents can cost billions
> to perfect.

How long a copyright should last is an ongoing battle.  The original
incentive for copyrights was to encourage creative work by giving the
creators exclusive rights to revenues derived from sale of what they
created, and the original life was intended to permit that but expire
after a period of years, allowing the work to lapse into the public
domain.

What we now face is a situation where work might *never* lapse into
the public domain.

The US is currently Life + 70 years.  Australia used to be Life + 50,
changed to Life + 70, but work that had already lapsed into the public
domain in Ausrtalia under the old rules was grandfathered, and did not
magically come under copyright again.  Canada is still Life + 50, and
the Project Gutenberg Canada site is leading the fight to keep it that
way.

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

Patents also have designated expiration dates.  But unlike copyrights,
you do have to jump through hoops to get them.  In the US, you must
submit an application to the USPTO, and it must be examined and
approved before a patent is issued.  There's a lot of unhappiness in
the computer industry about the process.  For instance, you don't get
a patent if it can be demonstrated  that prior art exists, and you are
trying to patent something that has already been in use before you
came along and you have not made something new.  Patent examiners are
overworked, and in many cases simply not qualified to judge the merits
of the patent applied for.

And for more fun, look at trademarks, where you must apply for
trademark and wait to see whether anyone objects.  Star wrestler Hulk
Hogan had to negotiate a license from Marvel comics to be able to call
himself Hulk because Marvel had trademarked the name.

> cheers
> DS
__
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

[Corbin Davenport]

The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement extends copyright laws for all countries
involved, but to my knowledge it's not in force yet.

Corbin
On 16 May 2016 3:38 p.m., "Dale E Sterner"  wrote:

> I stand corrected. What I heard was that senator Sonie Bono had the law
> extended.
> The europeans went a step futher and extended it even
> futher. I was talking to a woman who writes music and
> she said she had to renew every couple of years for
> a very small fee. What I don't understand is why copyrights
> last so much longer than patents Patents can cost billions
> to perfect.
>
> cheers
> DS
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2016 15:14:11 -0400 dmccunney 
> writes:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dale E Sterner
> >  wrote:
> > > Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
> > > In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
> > > his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
> > > can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in
> > > it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
> > > in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
> > > If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.
> >
> > Your knowledge of copyright is woefully out of date.  The United
> > States has been a signatory to the Berne copyright convention since
> > 1989 (as are 169 other nations), and US and European copyright
> > practices are the same.
> >
> > The principal difference I'm aware of is duration of copyright.
> > Copyright in the US and most other places is "Author's life plus 70
> > years".  (It used to be Life + 50.  That got changed in the US after
> > a
> > push by DisneyCo because Mickey Mouse was about to lapse into the
> > public domain.  Canada is still Life + 50).
> >
> > There is no requirement for renewal, nor is there requirement to
> > register.  Copyright exists automatically upon completion of the
> > work.
> > (Registration of copyright with the Library of Congress in the US
> > allows you to sue for higher damages in the event of infringement,
> > but
> > is not needed to *have* copyright.)
> >
> > > cheers
> > > DS
> > __
> > 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
> >
>
>
> **
> >From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
> ***
>
> 
> The New York Times
> Prince's Addiction And An Intervention Too Late
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573a218252eda2182522ast04duc
>
>
> --
> 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

[Dale E Sterner]

I stand corrected. What I heard was that senator Sonie Bono had the law
extended.
The europeans went a step futher and extended it even
futher. I was talking to a woman who writes music and
she said she had to renew every couple of years for
a very small fee. What I don't understand is why copyrights
last so much longer than patents Patents can cost billions
to perfect. 

cheers
DS



On Mon, 16 May 2016 15:14:11 -0400 dmccunney 
writes:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dale E Sterner 
>  wrote:
> > Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
> > In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
> > his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
> > can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in
> > it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
> > in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
> > If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.
> 
> Your knowledge of copyright is woefully out of date.  The United
> States has been a signatory to the Berne copyright convention since
> 1989 (as are 169 other nations), and US and European copyright
> practices are the same.
> 
> The principal difference I'm aware of is duration of copyright.
> Copyright in the US and most other places is "Author's life plus 70
> years".  (It used to be Life + 50.  That got changed in the US after 
> a
> push by DisneyCo because Mickey Mouse was about to lapse into the
> public domain.  Canada is still Life + 50).
> 
> There is no requirement for renewal, nor is there requirement to
> register.  Copyright exists automatically upon completion of the 
> work.
> (Registration of copyright with the Library of Congress in the US
> allows you to sue for higher damages in the event of infringement, 
> but
> is not needed to *have* copyright.)
> 
> > cheers
> > DS
> __
> 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
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


The New York Times
Prince's Addiction And An Intervention Too Late
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/573a218252eda2182522ast04duc

--
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 Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dale E Sterner  wrote:
> Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
> In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
> his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
> can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in
> it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
> in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
> If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.

Your knowledge of copyright is woefully out of date.  The United
States has been a signatory to the Berne copyright convention since
1989 (as are 169 other nations), and US and European copyright
practices are the same.

The principal difference I'm aware of is duration of copyright.
Copyright in the US and most other places is "Author's life plus 70
years".  (It used to be Life + 50.  That got changed in the US after a
push by DisneyCo because Mickey Mouse was about to lapse into the
public domain.  Canada is still Life + 50).

There is no requirement for renewal, nor is there requirement to
register.  Copyright exists automatically upon completion of the work.
(Registration of copyright with the Library of Congress in the US
allows you to sue for higher damages in the event of infringement, but
is not needed to *have* copyright.)

> cheers
> DS
__
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

[Dale E Sterner]

Copyright laws in the US & Europe are very different.
In the US if the creator neglects his work fails, to renew ;
his copyright dies forever. In europe an expired copyright
can be revived from limbo if he retakes an interest in 
it again. A lot of dos stuff has died from neglect but
in europe I've been told that its not permanently dead.
If you live in Europe, you need to be more careful.



cheers
DS






On Sun, 15 May 2016 16:58:00 -0400 dmccunney 
writes:
> 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
> 


**
>From Dale Sterner - MS organic chemistry
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00975a052
***


KooBuzz
Meet 60 Kids Who Look Like Their Famous Parents
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5739e1686cf9961687b34st01duc

--
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

[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 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 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 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

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

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.
 wrote:
>> On May 14, 2016, at 9:45 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:
>>
>>> BASE:
>>>
>>> No issues.
>>
>> Really? Did you double-check JEMM (JLOAD.EXE + *.JLM) and CuteMouse
>> (COM2EXE.EXE)
>
> I did not evaluate every single file in each package.

I don't know why I halfway expected you to fix it while at the same
time explicitly saying it's not your responsibility to vet thousands
of files!

In case you haven't noticed, it's a minefield, and we just don't have
the manpower to fix everything. So I personally just tend to ignore
some things because I can't fix it all either.

Having said that, and despite the honest pessimism that things will
never be "100% perfect", 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/

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.)

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.) :-(

> Without going into details, my free time gets more and more limited as we 
> move into
> summer. So, I am not going to evaluate or bring into compliance individual 
> files or
> packages. I can either drop non-compliant packages. Or, I can replace them 
> with
> compliant versions. I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just don’t have the spare 
> time to
> devote to that level of detail on those kind of issues.

Of course. That's totally fine. You have bigger priorities and other
hobbies. I don't demand anything special.

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!).

--
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 Sat, May 14, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
> Anyhow, these are the problem packages and their probable destinies.
>
> ARCHIVER:
>
> ZOO - Includes sources, may be Public Domain. No License information.
> Dropped.

Zoo was Rahul Dhesi's open source archiver, released as an alternative
to PKARC back when Phil Katz was being sued by Seaware over use of
their archive format.  The last archive I saw in a zoo format was for
the Amiga.  Zoo got ported to it, and it got some traction as an
archiver for the platform.  I haven't seen anything in zoo format for
the PC in decades. If you drop it, I'll be astonished if it's missed.
(If it *is*, it can still be had from elsewhere should anyone need
it.)

> UTIL:
>
> 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.
__
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

[Thomas Mueller]

Regarding packages to be dropped for failing LSM verification, I have some 
comments.

I see ZOO listed in FreeBSD ports and NetBSD pkgsrc, open-source, but may be 
very little-used nowadays.

PACIFICC is probably very outdated now, I never heard of TPPATCH and don't find 
it in NetBSD pkgsrc or FreeBSD ports.

What will there be for sound?  I never heard of ADT2, BLADEENC or DWJ, tried 
MPXPLAY but never with any success.   I can't remember ever succeeding with any 
sound in DOS except the beeper.

I don't really care about 4DOS, tried a little but was not attracted.

There is a misc/dialog in NetBSD pkgsrc, also some other dialogs in NetBSD 
pkgsrc and FreeBSD ports. 

I don't know if DIALOG proposed for FreeDOS is the same as any of those dialogs.

Without DOSLFN, no support at all for long filenames?

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

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

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

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.

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

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello, 

> On May 14, 2016, at 9:45 PM, Rugxulo  wrote:

> In particular, some software is "GPLv2 only" while others are "GPLv2
> (or later)" or even "GPLv2 (only) or GPLv3 (only)”.

I did not go into that fine of detail. 

But, someone should do that someday.

> [It's a mess.]

Very much so. Some are technically multiple licenses and really should be 
listed as such. For example: Some, maybe CLAMAV (Maybe not, I did just go 
hundreds of packages) that contains sources that range from GPLv2, 
LGPL 2.1, BSD, MIT…..

> 
>> Anyhow, these are the problem packages and their probable destinies.
>> 
>> ARCHIVER:
>> 
>> ZOO - Includes sources, may be Public Domain. No License information.
>> Dropped.
> 
> I already pointed you to Debian. Or just use older 2.01 if that
> worried. Or just use BOOZ, at least it can decompress. But hey, it's
> fairly obscure at this point, so I doubt most people even want it or
> know what it is.
> 
>> BASE:
>> 
>> No issues.
> 
> Really? Did you double-check JEMM (JLOAD.EXE + *.JLM) and CuteMouse
> (COM2EXE.EXE)

I did not evaluate every single file in each package. What I did was, locate 
and 
determine the license the package says it is released under (NOT the LSM DATA). 
If not present, searched all other readme, help and text documents. Then primary
executable sources and program resource data files. Finally, if it could not be 
determined,
some quick web searching. 

Without going into details, my free time gets more and more limited as we move 
into 
summer. So, I am not going to evaluate or bring into compliance individual 
files or
packages. I can either drop non-compliant packages. Or, I can replace them with 
compliant versions. I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just don’t have the spare 
time to 
devote to that level of detail on those kind of issues.

> [..]

>> 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]).

You are correct. It is just freely distributable. I must have some moved into a 
different
package when I was looking at the UIDE licensing. Oh well, it happens. But, 
regardless
of its licensing it was slated for removal.

> "
>   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, only some irrational rants and behavior from
> Jack himself.


--
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 again,

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr.  wrote:
>
> It took some doing. But, I have gone through all both the packages proposed
> for the FreeDOS 1.2 release. So, here are the changes that have been
> implemented. Some of these are listed even though it was decided beforehand
> that they were going to be pulled. One or two, have problems and aI am
> waiting on a decision from Jim to determine their fate. I have corrected
> nearly all packages with incorrect license types and versions. For example:
>
> BASE\APPEND was just GNU GPL, but is GNU General Public License, Version 2
> DEVEL\REGINA was listed as GPL, but is actually GNU Library General Public
> License, Version 2
> DEVEL\NASM has moved from GPL  to Simplified (2-Clause) BSD License.
> etc…

Great, but it's not really your responsibility to precisely mention
the exact (sub)license of every single util included. That's very hard
to do with thousands of files, way too many to vet (IMHO)!

In particular, some software is "GPLv2 only" while others are "GPLv2
(or later)" or even "GPLv2 (only) or GPLv3 (only)".

[It's a mess.]

> Anyhow, these are the problem packages and their probable destinies.
>
> ARCHIVER:
>
> ZOO - Includes sources, may be Public Domain. No License information.
> Dropped.

I already pointed you to Debian. Or just use older 2.01 if that
worried. Or just use BOOZ, at least it can decompress. But hey, it's
fairly obscure at this point, so I doubt most people even want it or
know what it is.

> BASE:
>
> No issues.

Really? Did you double-check JEMM (JLOAD.EXE + *.JLM) and CuteMouse
(COM2EXE.EXE)

> GAMES:
>
> PAKUPAKU - Unknown License, Dropped.

"Source Code (C) Jason M Knight and released to the public domain."

[Granted, I admit that even "public domain" isn't airtight and the
term can be misused, but here's it's fairly obvious that he's not
restricting it.]

Check his website for more info:http://www.deathshadow.com/

> PEDE - Unknown License, Dropped.

Indeed, I couldn't find any obvious licensing about that. Usually he
puts everything as GPLv2, but here it seems it's an old program that
he co-wrote with two other people, so maybe that's the hangup.

> XARGON - Two Licenses, One COMMERCIAL do not redistribute. AND Freeware
> License??? Dropped.

No idea, haven't looked, but presumably it was originally commercial
and later made "freeware". That's how things usually happened.

> NET:
>
> 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.

> CURL - Listed as GPL, it is not. No Sources. Dropped.

AFAIK, Curl is BSD-ish (contra GNU Wget, which is obviously GPLv3+),
with sources. I have at least three (unofficial, third-party) DJGPP
builds of it, but I have not rebuilt it myself nor heavily tested it.
At least Mik's latest (2015) build has HTTPS/SSL support (I think??)
and should work better than the (much older, buggy) others.

Once again, the problem is that I can't test every binary (in all
subfunctionality) nor vet every single source file nor (easily)
reproduce the build. So I can't really vouch for it, hence I've not
gone too far out of my way to promote it.

[Of course, having said that, I'd never use any software if I had to
personally vet everything, it would just take too long or is even
impossible in some cases.]

> SOUND:
>
> ADT2 - Fair License? Dropped.

Used to be on SF.net, but now is only back on original site (with
sources). But I don't see any obvious licensing in the (older) .ZIP I
have on my hard drive. The newer Git version doesn't say anything
either (except about non-DOS, SDL's license).

http://adlibtracker.net/downloads.php

> 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.)

> 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.

http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=4dos

"[modified MIT License that does not qualify as open source by OSI;
non-commercial]"

> BIEW - Listed as correctly as GPL, No Sources. Dropped.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/beye/files/biew/6.1.0/

"GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPLv2) "

[Though it's been a few years, I seem to recall that his DOS binaries
were 686+.]

> DIALOG - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Dropped.

I assume that is this one:

https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/menu/

> 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

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

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

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello John and All,

> I note that DOSLFN installs by default in FreeDOS 1.1, so if it is not kept 
> then the FD 1.2 installer would have to accommodate.

At present, DOSLFN is not installed with BASE. However, It is installed under 
ALL. I was unable to determine it’s license. It may be BSD, GPL, LGPL or even 
Public Domain. It is up to Jim to determine if it will just “ship” as-is or 
needs to be pulled. If it gets Dropped, no accommodations are planned for 
Windows Long File Name support. Sorry, not up to me.

> That's a shame about the MPXPLAY unknown license.  It's my standard MP3 
> player.

Unfortunately, for the most part, I had to go through all of the packages 
myself and could only devote so much time to packages that had poorly 
documented license information. While hunting down licenses, some packages like 
TESTDISK will even receive an upgrade. Others exceeded their allowed time and 
not being part of BASE or ALL, were defaulted to “Dropped." However, I don’t 
think any of the “Dropped” packages ever “shipped” with a FreeDOS release. That 
being said, you could always install them later or add them to your own 
customized USB stick ( see https://github.com/shidel/FDI/wiki ).

If you wish, you (or anyone else) might even find some spare time track down 
missing sources and license information to any of the “Dropped” packages. The 
“Removed” packages have been pulled for other reasons and probably not be 
included this or future releases of FreeDOS. 

Thanks, 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

[John Hupp]

I note that DOSLFN installs by default in FreeDOS 1.1, so if it is not 
kept then the FD 1.2 installer would have to accommodate.


That's a shame about the MPXPLAY unknown license.  It's my standard MP3 
player.


On 5/14/2016 9:22 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote:

Hello All,

It took some doing. But, I have gone through all both the packages 
proposed for the FreeDOS 1.2 release. So, here are the changes that 
have been implemented. Some of these are listed even though it was 
decided beforehand that they were going to be pulled. One or two, have 
problems and aI am waiting on a decision from Jim to determine their 
fate. I have corrected nearly all packages with incorrect license 
types and versions. For example:


BASE\APPEND was just /*GNU GPL*/, but is /*GNU General Public License, 
Version 2*/
DEVEL\REGINA was listed as /*GPL*/, but is actually /*GNU 
Library General Public License, Version 2*/
DEVEL\NASM has moved from */GPL/*  to */Simplified (2-Clause) BSD 
License/*.

etc…

Anyhow, these are the problem packages and their probable destinies.

ARCHIVER:

ZOO - Includes sources, may be Public Domain. No License information. 
Dropped.


BASE:

No issues.

DEVEL:

PACIFICC - Free. No Sources. Dropped.
TPPATCH - Free. No Sources. Dropped.

GAMES:

CHICKEN2 - Listed as Emailware. DOC says "This means that if you like 
the game, please

please please send me an email or a postcard!” *Include or Leave Dropped?*

ELIZA - Listed as Public Domain. No License information. Leaving as 
Public Domain.


JUMPBUMP - Email author required. Dropped.

NYET - Listed as GPL, No Source, Dropped.

PAKUPAKU - Unknown License, Dropped.

PEDE - Unknown License, Dropped.

QUADNET - Freeware, no source, Dropped.

TETRIS2K - Listed as Free, Possibly Public Domain. No license 
information. Dropped.


XARGON - Two Licenses, One COMMERCIAL do not redistribute. AND 
Freeware License??? Dropped.


NET:

CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.
CTORRENT - Listed as GPL, No License, No Sources. Dropped.

CURL - Listed as GPL, it is not. No Sources. Dropped.

NEWSNUZ - Listed as Public Domain. New parts are. Old parts say to 
reference missing file. Dropped.


PING - Listed as GPL, No Sources. Dropped.


SOUND:

ADT2 - Fair License? Dropped.

BLADEENC - LGPL, No Sources, Dropped.

DWJ - Freeware, No Sources, Dropped.

MPXPLAY - Unknown License, Dropped.

UTIL:

4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?

BIEW - Listed as correctly as GPL, No Sources. Dropped.

DESI3 - Listed as Freeware, Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.

DIALOG - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Dropped.

DOSIDLE - Free for non-commercial use, Dropped.

DOSLFN - Listed as GPL, No License Messages, Keep?

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

LSCOLOR - Listed as Public Domain, No Sources, Dropped.

MD5SUM - Listed as GPL, is Public Domain, contains several different 
OSS licenses. Unchanged.


MEMTEST - Listed as Freeware, Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.

SAVEPART - Listed as Free, No Sources. Dropped

SLOWDOS - Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.
(Replacing with SLOWDOWN, Hopefully)

TINYAES - Listed as Free, Unknown License. Dropped.

UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.

UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.

WHICH - Listed as GPLv2, No Sources, Dropped.

XCDROM - Removed.

XMSDISK - Listed as Freeware, No Sources, Dropped.

Thats all folks. :-)

Thanks, 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


--
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

[Freedos-user] FreeDOS 1.2 Package LSM Data Verification

[Jerome E. Shidel Jr.]

Hello All, 

It took some doing. But, I have gone through all both the packages proposed for 
the FreeDOS 1.2 release. So, here are the changes that have been implemented. 
Some of these are listed even though it was decided beforehand that they were 
going to be pulled. One or two, have problems and aI am waiting on a decision 
from Jim to determine their fate. I have corrected nearly all packages with 
incorrect license types and versions. For example:

BASE\APPEND was just GNU GPL, but is GNU General Public License, Version 2
DEVEL\REGINA was listed as GPL, but is actually GNU Library General Public 
License, Version 2
DEVEL\NASM has moved from GPL  to Simplified (2-Clause) BSD License.
etc…

Anyhow, these are the problem packages and their probable destinies.

ARCHIVER:

ZOO - Includes sources, may be Public Domain. No License information. 
Dropped.

BASE:

No issues.

DEVEL:

PACIFICC - Free. No Sources. Dropped.
TPPATCH - Free. No Sources. Dropped.

GAMES:

CHICKEN2 - Listed as Emailware. DOC says "This means that if you like 
the game, please
please please send me an email or a postcard!” Include or Leave Dropped?

ELIZA - Listed as Public Domain. No License information. Leaving as 
Public Domain.

JUMPBUMP - Email author required. Dropped.

NYET - Listed as GPL, No Source, Dropped.

PAKUPAKU - Unknown License, Dropped.

PEDE - Unknown License, Dropped.

QUADNET - Freeware, no source, Dropped.

TETRIS2K - Listed as Free, Possibly Public Domain. No license 
information. Dropped.

XARGON - Two Licenses, One COMMERCIAL do not redistribute. AND Freeware 
License??? Dropped.

NET:

CRYNWR - Unknown License, Dropped.

CTORRENT - Listed as GPL, No License, No Sources. Dropped.

CURL - Listed as GPL, it is not. No Sources. Dropped.

NEWSNUZ - Listed as Public Domain. New parts are. Old parts say to 
reference missing file. Dropped.

PING - Listed as GPL, No Sources. Dropped.


SOUND:

ADT2 - Fair License? Dropped.

BLADEENC - LGPL, No Sources, Dropped.

DWJ - Freeware, No Sources, Dropped.

MPXPLAY - Unknown License, Dropped.

UTIL:

4DOS - Listed as Free, No Sources. Kept for now, may get Dropped?

BIEW - Listed as correctly as GPL, No Sources. Dropped.

DESI3 - Listed as Freeware, Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.

DIALOG - Listed as GPL, No Sources, Dropped.

DOSIDLE - Free for non-commercial use, Dropped.

DOSLFN - Listed as GPL, No License Messages, Keep?

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

LSCOLOR - Listed as Public Domain, No Sources, Dropped.

MD5SUM - Listed as GPL, is Public Domain, contains several different 
OSS licenses. Unchanged.

MEMTEST - Listed as Freeware, Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.

SAVEPART - Listed as Free, No Sources. Dropped

SLOWDOS - Unknown License, No Sources, Dropped.
(Replacing with SLOWDOWN, Hopefully)

TINYAES - Listed as Free, Unknown License. Dropped.

UIDE - Free for non-commercial, Removed.

UMBPCI - Listed as free, No sources, Dropped.

WHICH - Listed as GPLv2, No Sources, Dropped.

XCDROM - Removed.

XMSDISK - Listed as Freeware, No Sources, Dropped.

Thats all folks. :-)

Thanks, 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