It isn't a license issue (Bruno is right: the license is probably "open enough"). But it's just that we have other compilers now. As I said in my other email (below) we had to decide what to include vs not.
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 6:25 PM Louis Santillan via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > If there is a license issue. Speak to Dave Dunfield on Vogons. > He's responsive and quite reasonable in my experience. Jim Hall wrote: >> It's a pretty good C compiler, and once upon a time I remember that we >> did include some Micro-C things in FreeDOS, and maybe even Micro-C >> itself (this would have been a while back, I don't remember the >> details very clearly anymore). >> >> But in more recent distributions, we've had to balance what we include >> on the CDs. We can't open up the floodgates to include every niche >> compiler just because one person thinks it's cool. And compilers are >> kind of big anyway, you can't include very many before the CD gets >> full. We already include OpenWatcom C, ia-16 GCC, and BCC. Plus FPB >> (Pascal) and FBC and BWBasic (BASIC) plus other compilers, assemblers >> (NASM, JWASM, FASM, ..) and development tools & libraries. >> >> So that's a long answer to say: probably not going to include Micro-C >> anytime soon. Bruno Ribeiro wrote: >> I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me this adhoc "license" is overall in >> the spirit of FLOSS (nevermind its vagueness and potential loopholes). >> Would Micro-C be considered for inclusion in FreeDOS? _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
