On May 3, 2016 8:01 PM, "Neal Gompa" <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> >> Are the FreeDOS sources under a Fedora-acceptable license?
> >
> > Probably needs review. It's mostly GPLv2, but some of the included
> > software has various other licenses. See
> > <http://www.freedos.org/software/?cat=util>. I'm looking with the Fry
> > meme* at a couple that say "Source code available (open)".
> >
> > * https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Futurama-Fry.jpg
> >
>
> As far as I'm aware, all of the core of FreeDOS is GPLv2, but various
> extra utilities may be under other licenses. Things that we can't
> include are probably easy enough to remove.
>
> The real problem is going to be building FreeDOS from source. As far
> as I know, we don't have a FOSS compiler that can produce 16-bit
> binaries. There is OpenWatcom, but its license is listed as one of the
> bad ones. Anyone know anybody at Sybase/SAP would could fix this?
> SAP appears to be the current copyright holder for the code, as they
> acquired Sybase in 2012.
>
>
GCC and clang can both produce 16-bit binaries using a big hack. The Linux kernel does this for some early boot code. I would be quite surprised if it would work for dosemu.
I have a very very tenuous SAP contact, and I'll ask. Don't hold your breath.
--Andy
>
>
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
