Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-18 Thread Bart Oldeman
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, tom ehlert wrote: Neither are most compilers in use for FreeDOS (with the exception of watcom). LG ...and the Borland Museum compilers. AFAIR, the Borland museum compilers have a license similar to 'free for personal use. if you want to distribute compiled

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-18 Thread Arkady V.Belousov
Hi! 18--2004 08:14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Don't know if Bart has a TC/BC license; else all old kernels (compiled with TC), are illegal, too. MD Shhh! The Borland Compliance Engineer may hear you. I wonder how one goes MD about getting a compliance

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-18 Thread Bart Oldeman
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, tom ehlert wrote: JH What about Pat Villani, who wrote prf.c and portab.h? this prf.c was written by the author of mkeyb, NOT pat villani. yes, prf.c was completely recoded in the early days I started maintaining the kernel. It's had some more updates from me in the kernel

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-18 Thread Jim Hall
tom ehlert wrote: Hello Jim, JH I assume you mean yourself? Or do you mean Anton Zinoviev, since he JH wrote several files from scratch? several ? and I will immediately remove the BG keyboard from MKEYB, should he ask me. Yes, looks like BG. Looking at the mkeyb 0.40 zip file: /* keydefbg.h

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-18 Thread tom ehlert
Bart, BO Who can sue Tom for changing the license? The copyright holders. There aren't any. contributing to a project doesn't mean you get a copyright. BO Will they BO sue Tom? They'll have a tough time in court (because the contributions BO are minor and close to fair use) only 'close' to fair

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-18 Thread Luchezar Georgiev
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:12:41 +0100, tom ehlert wrote: Or do you mean Anton Zinoviev, since he wrote several files from scratch? several ? and I will immediately remove the BG keyboard from MKEYB, should he ask me. As an active Linux developer he probably doesn't care, and even if it does this,

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-17 Thread Luchezar Georgiev
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:54:16 +0100, tom ehlert wrote: MKEYB 0.40 released website http://www.drivesnapshot.de/freedos/mkeyb.htm download http://www.drivesnapshot.de/freedos/mkeyb.zip changes: now uses APACK for 200 byte smaller executable licensing changed to allow distribution of APACK'ed

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-17 Thread Bart Oldeman
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote: On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:54:16 +0100, tom ehlert wrote: MKEYB 0.40 released website http://www.drivesnapshot.de/freedos/mkeyb.htm download http://www.drivesnapshot.de/freedos/mkeyb.zip changes: now uses APACK for 200 byte smaller

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-17 Thread Arkady V.Belousov
Hi! 17--2004 08:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Hall) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: MKEYB 0.40 released As sayed Lucho there is 0.39. JH I think there's a problem here. If you recall the discussion with Dave JH Turner (FSF), he said: I heard that you were considering a proprietary executable

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-17 Thread tom ehlert
MKEYB 0.40 released changes: now uses APACK for 200 byte smaller executable licensing changed to allow distribution of APACK'ed executables JH What you have indicated in your release is that you modified the license JH to allow distribution of the aPack'ed binary. However, you need to have

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-17 Thread tom ehlert
MKEYB 0.40 released ... LG Great! But when I downloaded it, it turned out to be... the old version LG (0.39)! :-( Don't know why it wasn't uploaded, but now it is. You may have to refresh your browsers cache, otherwise you might still get the old version. BO I wonder why you'd want to save

Re: [Freedos-devel] mKEYB 0.40

2004-03-17 Thread Johnson Lam
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:33:15 + (GMT), you wrote: Hi Bart, Great! But when I downloaded it, it turned out to be... the old version (0.39)! :-( I wonder why you'd want to save 200 bytes anyway, when the disk space used is exactly the same (8002 - 7802, both 16 sectors)? Lucho may want to