Re: [Freedos-user] UIDE versus UHDD in freedos 1.2 - and 1.3

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 6:34 AM, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de wrote: > Hi Mercury, some short answers :-) > I think dates as version numbers are fine when there is no explicit version > numbering. I would use the date of the most recent file, leave the decision > to you whether that means th

Re: [Freedos-user] WinWorldPC disk images...

Hi Michael, > I'm on a CentOS 7 system. I downloaded a rar archive of Wordperfect 6.0 > dos that is an archive of floppy images. I do not at this time have real > floppy > support... but I do have zip disks. Is there a way I can mount these > images and create one larger image? This is untested f

Re: [Freedos-user] UIDE versus UHDD in freedos 1.2 - and 1.3

Hi, > On Mar 27, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Mercury Thirteen via Freedos-user > wrote: > > Hi Jerome, Eric! > > > On Friday, March 27, 2020 1:16 PM, Jerome Shidel jer...@shidel.net > wrote: > > Hi Eric, > I took a quick look. > There is some minor confusion and package is

Re: [Freedos-user] UIDE versus UHDD in freedos 1.2 - and 1.3

Hi Mercury, some short answers :-) I think dates as version numbers are fine when there is no explicit version numbering. I would use the date of the most recent file, leave the decision to you whether that means the version is this week since YOU yourself have made per-driver excerpts of the re

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

On 3/27/20 5:34 PM, Jim Hall wrote: As I said, I think 4DOS can fix it by removing term 2 from the license (and possibly term 3) since that's what makes the 4DOS license "not open source." Rex would need to agree to it, since both terms have Rex's name on them. An interesting idea would be

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

Am 27.03.20 um 23:29 schrieb Jim Hall: > Yes, as I said in my other email, the 4DOS license was a mistake and I > should not have suggested that extra term to Rex. This is unfortunate. You might not have got the sources for 4DOS without those additional terms, since Rex Conn was worried that free

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

On Mar 27 2020 23:53, Random Liegh wrote via Freedos-user: > The important question isn't "why would I", the question is "can I". > > Any reason someone would want to port software from dos to another OS > valid. Any reason. But in the case of 4dos they can't because of the > license. While that

Re: [Freedos-user] 4DOS - license issue, not included in FreeDOS 1.3?

On Mar 27 2020 23:34, Jim Hall wrote: > I didn't want to put FreeDOS in the position of having a "non-free" > package > group like some Linux distributions. That's going to make things > really confusing, and possibly make things harder. As I said, I think > 4DOS can fix it by removing term 2 from