> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 7:05 PM Jim Hall > * red (do not include)
>>
>> 1. Archivers/lha
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:24 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> Again, I'm pretty sure those sources came from Debian. Is that not good
> enough?
Must have missed your note about that in your other email. I'll go
back
FYI: I have removed Harald's Tail from ibiblio, and updated the wiki
page to reflect that.
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 10:43 AM Harald Arnesen TK Chia [13/11/2018 15.12]:
>
> > Hello Jim, hello Harald,
> >
> > > FYI: I've posted Harald's port of GNU Tail on our ibiblio archive. You
> > > can find it at
> >
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/unix/tail/c/
> > >
>
TK Chia [13/11/2018 15.12]:
> Hello Jim, hello Harald,
>
> > FYI: I've posted Harald's port of GNU Tail on our ibiblio archive. You
> > can find it at
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/unix/tail/c/
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Apologies for the late note --- but can we
Hello Jim, hello Harald,
> FYI: I've posted Harald's port of GNU Tail on our ibiblio archive. You
> can find it at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/unix/tail/c/
>
> Thanks!
Apologies for the late note --- but can we confirm that the posted code
is indeed from the
On 11.11.2018 02:32 Jim Hall wrote:
> Thanks, that's very helpful!
>
> I'll update USBDOS to be green. :-)
It's pretty clear the current requirements make this application non
free (see below), so shouldn't it be marked as red instead?
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:30 PM Bret Johnson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 7:05 PM Jim Hall
> WHAT I NEED FROM YOU:
>
> - If you disagree with the status of any of these, please comment in a
> reply
>
> Summary of the yellow and red items:
>
> * red (do not include)
>
> 1. Archivers/lha
>
Again, I'm pretty sure those sources came from Debian.
Hi everyone
Based on notes that you all have provided in the discussion here, I
have updated the Releases/1.3/Packages page on the wiki. A bunch of
programs are now listed green that were yellow or even red previously.
Thanks for your comments.
The list is at
FYI: I've posted Harald's port of GNU Tail on our ibiblio archive. You
can find it at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/unix/tail/c/
Thanks!
I've also updated Releases/1.3/Packages on the wiki to reflect that
Tail is now green, using Harald's port.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 2:24 PM Steve Nickolas
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rugxulo wrote:
However, AFAIK, "OpenDOS" (kernel and shell only) is "sources
available, non-commercial only". So not exactly free/libre, but at
least it's not illegal. That's what
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 2:24 PM Steve Nickolas On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rugxulo wrote:
>
> > However, AFAIK, "OpenDOS" (kernel and shell only) is "sources
> > available, non-commercial only". So not exactly free/libre, but at
> > least it's not illegal. That's what EDR-DOS is based upon. Those are
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rugxulo wrote:
However, AFAIK, "OpenDOS" (kernel and shell only) is "sources
available, non-commercial only". So not exactly free/libre, but at
least it's not illegal. That's what EDR-DOS is based upon. Those are
still available via WayBack (Web Archive). Maybe you already
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 4:19 PM Steve Nickolas wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, François Revol wrote:
>
> > Nice to see some retro people interested in legal issues :-)
>
> Which reminds me...
>
> The other day I was looking for assistance in cleanrooming some pieces of
> MS-DOS 2.11 and 3.x
Hi, Jim,
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:55 PM Jim Hall wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM Rugxulo wrote:
> > lincrawl ... (aka, Linley's Dungeon Crawl) is something I used to play
> [..]
> > relicensed to GPLv2+." I know that's not exactly the same as saying
> > the old game is GPL now, but
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, François Revol wrote:
Nice to see some retro people interested in legal issues :-)
Which reminds me...
The other day I was looking for assistance in cleanrooming some pieces of
MS-DOS 2.11 and 3.x so that I had an option for systems where FreeDOS
might be less than
Hi,
Le 07/11/2018 à 16:01, Rugxulo a écrit :
> Hi, Jim,
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:50 PM Jim Hall wrote:
>>
>> I have been working to create a list of packages for FreeDOS 1.3.
>>
>> I mentioned back in June (as part of a discussion thread about "Removing
>> non-free packages")
>> that I
Hi Jim,
>> (Meh, non-commercial isn't great, but alas, without further
>> clarification, that's probably a no-go for us.)
>
> Yup, requiring that the program *cannot* be sold (non-commercial only)
> is a no-go. But for games, I think it's easy to swap out whatever we
> want, these programs are
Hi Jim,
>> doslfn ... not sure if it's free/libre, but it's widely used. Of
>> course, there are other alternatives, too, of varying quality (e.g.
>> StarLFN). At least VFAT/LFN is finally unpatented nowadays (I think?).
>> Again, you may have to contact the (inactive) maintainer for
>>
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM Rugxulo wrote:
> lincrawl ... (aka, Linley's Dungeon Crawl) is something I used to play
[..]
> relicensed to GPLv2+." I know that's not exactly the same as saying
> the old game is GPL now, but it's close. You'd have to email them
> directly to fully clarify, most
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jim Hall wrote:
> As Eric pointed out, that's not the author's website.
[..]
Oops, that was Robert not Eric.
Jim
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> On at 2018-11-05 18:01 +, Bret Johnson wrote:
> > Being the author of two of the items mentioned (USBDOS & SLOWDOWN), I can
> > say that there is no problem in including them with FreeDOS. SLOWDOWN is a
> > much older program than USBDOS, and the licensing and even my opinions of
> >
Thanks, that's very helpful!
I'll update USBDOS to be green. :-)
For SLOWDOWN, would you be open to making an updated release with an
updated license file that is at least similar to USBDOS? The
consistency would be good. (You mentioned SLOWDOWN is an older
program, so the license info for that
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:13 AM Tom Ehlert wrote:
>
>
> > 3. Development/TPPATCH
> wiki comment>>> no source code, no license text
>
> http://www.ipnet6.org/tppatch.html
>
> the comments make it pretty clear that the author wants to give this
> away for free; just without gnuish legalese. I
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 8:18 PM Steve Nickolas wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Jim Hall wrote:
>
> > 1. Emulators/MEKA
> > wiki comment>> License is unclear. The website says "MEKA is a free
> > software distributed under a BSD-like license, allowing you to browse
> > and reuse sources and data
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:26 AM Rugxulo wrote:
>
> Hi again, Jim,
>
> Just for completeness
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:01 AM Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> > Of course, there are many other Invaders clones
> > (e.g. one ported from QBASIC to XPL0
>
> * http://www.xpl0.org/INVADERS.ZIP
>
> "
> This
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Rugxulo wrote:
(Or maybe we need to finally add full LFN support into the kernel by
default?)
This is what I'd do, if I could do it. Although I'd see why some people
might be averse to the idea.
-uso.
___
Freedos-devel
Hi again, Jim,
Just for completeness
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:01 AM Rugxulo wrote:
>
> Of course, there are many other Invaders clones
> (e.g. one ported from QBASIC to XPL0
* http://www.xpl0.org/INVADERS.ZIP
"
This game is freeware. That is, it's free to use and distribute anywhere you
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:02 AM Joe Forster/STA wrote:
>
> > doslfn ... not sure if it's free/libre, but it's widely used. Of
> > course, there are other alternatives, too, of varying quality (e.g.
> > StarLFN).
>
> There's no able alternative for DOSLFN.
> Honestly, I think we can't afford
Hi guys,
doslfn ... not sure if it's free/libre, but it's widely used. Of
course, there are other alternatives, too, of varying quality (e.g.
StarLFN).
There's no able alternative for DOSLFN. (StarLFN isn't one as it doesn't
actually support VFAT, only storing long filenames in a file per
Hi again, Jim,
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:10 PM Jim Hall wrote:
>
> And there are these programs that I think should not be included in
> FreeDOS 1.3, and I marked those in red. I know we've included some of
> these in previous releases, but I don't think the licenses are really
> that free or
Hi, Jim,
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:50 PM Jim Hall wrote:
>
> I have been working to create a list of packages for FreeDOS 1.3.
>
> I mentioned back in June (as part of a discussion thread about "Removing
> non-free packages")
> that I would like FreeDOS 1.3 to be as "open source" as possible.
>
Hello Mr. Jim Hall,
I'd appreciate a discussion here about these programs and my evaluations of
their licenses. Especially the ones in red ("no") or yellow ("maybe"). Do
you agree with the decisions here? What are your thoughts on the ones I
marked in yellow?
Thank you for the work! I would
Hi Tom,
>> 3. Development/TPPATCH
> wiki comment>>> no source code, no license text
>
> http://www.ipnet6.org/tppatch.html
>
> the comments make it pretty clear that the author wants to give this
> away for free; just without gnuish legalese. I consider this free, no
> strings attached.
On at 2018-11-05 18:01 +, Bret Johnson wrote:
> Being the author of two of the items mentioned (USBDOS & SLOWDOWN), I can say
> that there is no problem in including them with FreeDOS. SLOWDOWN is a much
> older program than USBDOS, and the licensing and even my opinions of what the
>
Being the author of two of the items mentioned (USBDOS & SLOWDOWN), I can say
that there is no problem in including them with FreeDOS. SLOWDOWN is a much
older program than USBDOS, and the licensing and even my opinions of what the
licensing should be have changed over the years.
What I want
> 3. Development/TPPATCH
wiki comment>>> no source code, no license text
http://www.ipnet6.org/tppatch.html
the comments make it pretty clear that the author wants to give this
away for free; just without gnuish legalese. I consider this free, no
strings attached.
> 4. Utilities/4DOS
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Jim Hall wrote:
1. Emulators/MEKA
wiki comment>> License is unclear. The website says "MEKA is a free
software distributed under a BSD-like license, allowing you to browse
and reuse sources and data with no restrictions." The sources.txt file
includes a license that is
Jim Hall wrote:
> > I'd appreciate a discussion here about these programs and my
> > evaluations of their licenses. Especially the ones in red ("no") or
> > yellow ("maybe"). Do you agree with the decisions here? What are
> > your thoughts on the ones I marked in yellow?
Tom Ehlert wrote:
> all
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:38 AM Tom Ehlert wrote:
>
> Hi,
[ I'll reply to the other stuff in a separate email ]
>
> kernel/freecom
> **Note: Bart has a new version, should check if that's stable to include in
> FreeDOS 1.3
>
> shouldn't this be the other way round? release after bugs are
Jim Hall [11/4/18 12:49 AM]:
> I'd appreciate a discussion here about these programs and my evaluations
> of their licenses. Especially the ones in red ("no") or yellow
> ("maybe"). Do you agree with the decisions here? What are your thoughts
> on the ones I marked in yellow?
"tail.c" from GNU
Hi,
> I'd appreciate a discussion here about these programs and my
> evaluations of their licenses. Especially the ones in red ("no") or
> yellow ("maybe"). Do you agree with the decisions here? What are
> your thoughts on the ones I marked in yellow?
all these programs/licenses have been 'free
Hi everyone
I have been working to create a list of packages for FreeDOS 1.3.
I mentioned back in June (as part of a discussion thread about "Removing
non-free packages") that I would like FreeDOS 1.3 to be as "open source" as
possible. But FreeDOS is very old (1994) and at that time, even the
42 matches
Mail list logo
