At 04:01 PM 3/31/2009, Jim Hall wrote: > > OTOH linux has had LFN for ages; without problems so far. only now MS > > started some fight with TomTom > > > >> In the face of these patents, perhaps FreeDOS 1.1 should not include > >> DOSLFN, and instead indicate where the user could download it > >> separately. (http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/) > > > > IMO this would be > > > > a) paranoia. I think it's unlikely that MS management even cares > > about FreeDOS in any way; it's extremely unlikely they would take the > > time to sue a distribution of FreeDOS X.Y > > > > b) irrelevant. I highly doubt there will be a FreeDOS 1.1. Ever. Feel > > free to prove me wrong. > > > >Agreed. > >But I would still recommend to avoid possible hassle, and that a >future FreeDOS 1.1 not include LFNDOS, just provide a reference for >users to go get it. It's up to whoever releases a "1.1" distro, >though.
I would suggest to play it safe this way as well. The fact that M$ doesn't care "right now" about FreeDOS doesn't mean that Evil Steve (Balmer) doesn't change his mind if things are starting to look not so great money wise in the future, given the current state of the world wide economy. I know from a local M$ sales manager here in LA that it still doesn't go to well with M$ that Dell is using FreeDOS to circumvent an agreement that Dell has with M$ in regards to sell certain PC hardware without an M$ operating system. If they see their server software market shrinking even more, FreeDOS could easily become a target in this case... Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
