Jim Hall schrieb: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Michael Reichenbach > <michael_reichenb...@freenet.de> wrote: >> Eric Auer schrieb: >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... >>> >>>> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense >>>> also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? >>> Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would >>> have to re-implement LFN from scratch and there is also a >>> risk to get nagging from MS because some LFN things are >>> still patented by Microsoft. >> By the way I must repeat the question "who would be theoretically sued?". >> >> Currently DOSLFN is a part of the FreeDOS 1.0 distribution. If ms has a >> patent on LFN then this will be already violated, no matter if LFN >> support is in kernel or in an application included in the distribution. >> >> Not the programmer of DOSLFN would be sued, also probable not the >> hypothetical programmer for LFN in DOS-C. >> >> I think it's the distributor who would get sued and this is in this case >> the responsible person for the website. (Fortunally also other people >> are redistribution FreeDOS and/or DOSLFN but to sue freedos.org does not >> mean that them get also automatically sued.) >> >> So programming LFN for DOS-C wouldn't make a difference. The risk to get >> sued is already there and not bigger because the patent is already >> violated so or so. > > Adding LFN support directly to the kernel could have a much larger > impact. In reality, the first step is always a Cease & Desist letter - > which usually means stop distributing the offending parts. Where LFN > remains with DOSLFN (an external TSR) we simply remove DOSLFN from > ibiblio and from our software list, and remove the FreeDOS 1.0 > distribution that includes it. That requires re-releasing a FreeDOS > 1.0.1 distro that does not include DOSLFN. > > If LFN support were part of the kernel, a C&D would mean not > distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very > difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version.
It does not make much difference imho if external application or inside kernel. config.sys would need LFN=0 or LFN=1 so or so. Adding a compile option --with-lfn or --without-lfn or removing it from the source shouldn't be a big deal also. Removing isn't complicated so or so. > In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include > DOSLFN, I hope you will rethink this... When posting enough patents here you can distribute in the end nothing as even trivial things are patented such as double click. Also reading all existing patents and new ones will take infinite time. After discussing this topic... Is there a policy on which laws you plan to follow? There are ~190 states. > and instead indicate where the user could download it > separately. (http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/) Then you give the hot potato just to someone else. This isn't critism, but what if he decides also to take it offline? > When others have asked me, I have recommended a "wait and see" > approach. That's also my approach. I am just not able to express myself so understandable (limited English). I live my live without scare and just wanted to show that it's quite effective. You can not live in scare, we can discuss this topic so long until the whole FreeDOS distro must be removed because there is always some patent or law in the way. > In February 2009, Microsoft filed > a patent infringement lawsuit against TomTom based on patents related > to FAT32 filesystem. Wait for the final outcome in that case, then > decide based on that whether to remove DOSLFN. The final outcome is already done (I've read on german news sites). -mr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
