On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 16:01:24 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote: > On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 08:15:00 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 01:29:19 +0000, Thomas Tabler wrote: >>> Thanks for all your help. I checked my friend's computer and he >>> just has an upgraded, partial install of MS-DOS 6.20. No bootdisks >>> or install files. Also, he has an old 1.2M drive he could POSSIBLY >>> move the DOS 3.3 files too, but I still have to find them. On the >>> web I found NOTHING about downloadable DOS versions that were not >>> for a commercial purpose or weren't just boot disks. I can try again >>> using DOSlynx or IE3 but I doubt it extremely. Good luck to those >>> trying to find low-cost alternative DOSes. Very little info on cost >>> is available except by e-mail or in-depth web search. Hopefully I can >>> get something that's workable for low cost. >> How about free? http://www.freedos.org > Next best thing to 100% free..... free for noncommercial use. I don't think anyone should have any moral, legal, or ethical qualms about freely distributing vintage and legacy versions of DOS to anyone owning a PC manufactured after the development and release of the particular version wanted. The reason I feel this way is that virtually all computers sold new after the develpment and release of whatever DOS version was contemporary at the time came supplied with the then current DOS version. If you own the computer, you have the right to use the DOS that the computer was originally supplied with because the DOS has already been paid for at least once by the original owner. That is my way of thinking. Supplying the DOS version that originally came with an old computer is no more criminal than supplying a XEROX copy of an owner's manual that originally came with an old car. The original owner's manual has already been paid for by the original owner. Why would anyone want to make a big deal over copyright infringement in a case as silly as this? BTW, anyone can order faithful facsimile reproductions of owner's manuals for old cars from J.C Whitney and other companies. Although this is copyright material, we don't see any notices of license to republish and redistribute the same. We never hear of any car manufacturers making a stink over copyright piracy and about providing support for outdated versions of cars. If car manufacturers don't make a big flap over things like that, then why should computer manufacturers and software developers and their fellow conspirators get after people providing support for old computers? Can the conspirators bite as bad as they bark? I wonder. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
