15.08.2013 18:59, Frantisek Hanzlik пишет: > Stas Sergeev wrote: >> 15.08.2013 14:27, Frantisek Hanzlik пишет: >>> - regarding to building FreeDOS with GPLed compiler and things that >>> DOSEMU/FreeDOS isn't in certain Linux distros: as I understand this, >>> distro maintainers not include it in distro cores because FreeDOS >>> cannot be compiled with _open_source_ compiler (IMO it doesn't need >>> to be GPLed one). Thus, isn't their opinion from pre-openwatcom era >>> and now nothing prevent to include DOSEMU/FreeDOS into Linux >>> distributions? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase_Open_Watcom_Public_License > I tried understand this and referenced links, but right interpretation > is perhaps over my english skills. Only a few things: > - it seems as OW is released under "Sybase Open Watcom Public License > version 1.0" sometimes from 2002, and according to You mentioned wiki > page, there is a draft of version 2.0 of the Licence from 2004. > Then, will not be fine when this v2.0 license will satisfy distributions > leaders? Maybe. But please note that 9 years passed since 2004, and there was no release, just the draft. Even if they eventually make a release, just how many time it will take to re-license OW under that license? I wouldn't hold a breathe. > World evolves, sometimes in right direction, hope OW will have better > license soon. Soon? > For me, it seems as e.g. restrictions to use firmware under Fedora: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware > are more benevolent than use FreeDOS with DOSEMU (maybe in this case > is possible imagine FreeDOS as some sort of 'firmware', as it isn't > directly executable under Linux, yes?) It is not impossible to include freedos in debian contrib, as it is GPL. But it will have to stay in contrib until it can be compiled under debian. It is actually already there AFAIK, but I know too little about debian. So, while not completely impossible, freedos will always be a second-class citizen in the distros. While this is the case, people can decide to install only dosemu and boot their own DOS - this is what I do anyway. There was a project started, freedos-32, that was meant to solve that problem, but I don't think it progresses fast enough. >>> Of course, I personally shall be happy to see DOSEMU >>> in Linux distributions too. >> Someone have to write a compiler for for FreeDOS and release >> it under GPL. :) > Yeah, it would be super, but we need be realistic... > IMO there's no need to be all strictly GPL (v2, v2+, v3+, LGPL+/- :), > maybe lot of other OSI licenses accepted by FSF would be fine too. OK but that won't help getting such a compiler. There is none under GPL and none under any other fsf-approved license. Some googling reveals that there actually are few, but freedos have to be "ported" for them... > Yes, I just now, out from curiosity, insert some my old CD from 1998 and > found 16-bit Netscape Navigator gold (v3.04) and standard (3.04 and 4.04) > there. Where those times are... Nostalgia... But when I 15 years was not > using them, most likely I will get along without them in the future too ;) You can also run ms-word 2 or 6. :-! But maybe you can also run this all under Wine... >> Not a very big deal, sure, but still it is a bit of a problem >> by itself that FreeDOS, being recommended to use with dosemu, >> shrinks its functionality compared to other DOSes. It should enrich >> the functionality, not shrink. > IMO those are functionalities related to 32-bit CPUs leverage, as work > with memory, task switching etc. - and these features even are not > fully compatible across all DOS distributions. FreeDOS perhaps extend > DOS functionality in other areas too. Regards task switching - for me Task switching presumably doesn't work under DrDOS, not freedos. drdos has some taskmgr that seems to use their extensions to emm386. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
