It would likely be prudent to get a confirmation statement from Russell Nelson as well.
Per crynwr.com nel...@crynwr.com +1 315 323 1241 voice Crynwr Software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. Potsdam, NY 13676 On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:19 AM John Vella <john.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree! > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, 07:33 Thomas Mueller, <mueller6...@twc.com> wrote: > >> from Jim Hall: >> >> >> > I don't know why the sources later had an "AMD" statement put on them, >> > but you cannot claim "proprietary" or "copyright" on something that >> > was previously released under the GNU General Public License. >> >> > It appears that somewhere along the line, someone (at AMD?) had access >> > to the sources, probably in a larger source tree, and ran a batch job >> > or script to apply the "AMD" statement to a bunch of source files. And >> > that happened to catch these GPL and public domain source files. I >> > believe that was done in error. The original public domain and GPL >> > declarations trump the latter "AMD" statement. >> >> >> > Resolution: >> >> >> > (1) Let's re-accept the FDNET package into the next FreeDOS >> distribution. >> >> > (2) I'll make a note about this decision in the FreeDOS wiki at >> > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages >> > (this currently has a red "do not include" note on it .. I'll update >> > to change it a green "include" message) >> >> > (3) To prevent future confusion, I'll create a new version of these >> > source files that *removes* the "AMD" statement, where a previous GPL >> > or public domain declaration was already made. (I think that's all of >> > the files in question.) I'll also create (or update, if it exists) a >> > README file to note the changes to the source files, and why. >> >> >> > I look forward to including networking support again in the next >> > distribution, which should be FreeDOS 1.3 RC5. >> >> >> > *If you agree or disagree, I'd appreciate your reply to this email. >> > Agreement can be simply "agree" or "+1". If you disagree, please >> > discuss. (But consensus from the last discussion favored including >> > FDNET, so if no one disagrees now, I'll assume no concerns on this.) >> >> Agree >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Freedos-user mailing list >> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >> > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >
_______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
