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

> > 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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.

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

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 >

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

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.

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

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

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

> 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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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. >>

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 >

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

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

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

> > 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

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

> 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

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

> 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 >

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

> 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?

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

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. > >

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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.]

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

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

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

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,

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

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.