Hi guys, EA: > > Thanks for the warning :-)). Luckily most of the FreeDOS > > kernel is written in C... One of the things that make it > > complicated is that it sometimes has to follow long chains > > of things calling each other because it is documented that > > MS DOS does it the same way, so for example drivers only > > work if FreeDOS does the same complicated stuff...
I don't think DOS does anythink too complicated. All layers have a special purpose (f.e. CDS for drive redirection, SFT for redirection and device handles, etc.) and it isn't that hard to understand all these. > > A goal reached by illegal means is not really reached in my > > opinion. If the priority of MS DOS compatibility is higher > > than the priority of law, stealing MS DOS install disks is > > a much easier way to reach the goal than stealing sources > > and putting them or things learned from them into FreeDOS. If your priority is not to break the law, buy MS-DOS (and/or Win4.x) install disks plus license and use (or DEBUG) these legally ;-) MR: > Here are very bad news for you. You are violating the law so often in > your life. There is so many law text concerning you and you can never > memorize everything and while you are just living you can not have all > the laws still in back mind, that's impossible. Still no excuse to break the law when you _know_ you're doing it. > How can we finally prove that it's illegal or not? By asking whether we would want someone to "steal" (that is, copy) our source code and use it violating the license it was released with. If you use leaked Microsoft code then that's as if Microsoft would use open-sourced FreeDOS code without providing the source of it or links or whatever. (Just as DR-DOS, Inc did for their crappy DR-DOS version 8.00; and no one accepted it back then.) Please don't say that Microsoft would never do that: I don't care. > The problem with downloading is that things are virtual and the original > is still in hands of the original producer. So stealing is probable not > the right word. What's the right word, then? I doubt it's "pirating". > Also again, why do you believe FreeDOS is free of MS-DOS's intellectual > property? That's impossible as you implemented a "pretty" compatible > operating system. > > What do you think where the Undocumented DOS knowledge has come from? From reverse engineering, of course. Some information (f.e. about Novell Netware and Novell [DR-]DOS 7.0/6.0, but also from Microsoft) came from employees of the associated companies but because they gave these without NDA limitations it's allowed to use them, too. Did you read UDOS, anyway? Regards, Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
