Re: [Freedos-devel] No simple cpu identification program returning an error code as an answer?
Hi all, When it comes to releasing something as public domain, I think “The Unlicense” (aka CC0) is a great choice and maintains the spirit of public domain. Basically it says, do whatever you want with it. But, don’t blame me if it doesn’t work or breaks something. https://opensource.org/licenses/Unlicense It is also a recognized open source license. :-) ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Ré : Ré : Ré : suggested qemu command line to boot FreeDOS
Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel [29/08/2022 17.57]: Just running QEMU with "-net nic,model=pcnet -net user" is not enough. I means, after that if I do "fdnpkg search gcc", it results in "NO PACKET DRIVER". I need to type "fdnet", and then it get an IP address through DHCP... and then "fdnpkg search gcc" works! In "fdauto.bat", change the line call %dosdir%\bin\fdnet.bat start to call %dosdir%\bin\fdnet.bat (That is, remove the "start"). This made networking work for me. -- Hilsen Harald ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] No simple cpu identification program returning an error code as an answer?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 2:38 PM Robert Riebisch wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> > The Creative Commons have identified a "CC-0" ("Creative Commons
> > Zero") that indicates "no rights reserved" that does the same thing.
> > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
>
> May I apply CC0 to computer software? If so, is there a recommended
> implementation?
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F
>
The Open Source Initiative also says this (2017) about public domain:
https://opensource.org/node/878
[..]
> Plenty of people assume that public domain software must be open
> source. While it may be free software within your specific context, it
> is incorrect to treat public domain software as open source or indeed as
> globally free software. That’s not a legal opinion (I’m not a lawyer
> so only entitled to layman’s opinions) but rather an observation that
> an open source user or developer cannot safely include public domain
> source code in a project.
>
[..]
> “Public Domain” means software (or indeed anything else that could
> be copyrighted) that is not restricted by copyright. It may be this way
> because the copyright has expired, or because the person entitled to
> control the copyright has disclaimed that right. Disclaiming copyright
> is only possible in some countries, and copyright expiration happens
> at different times in different jurisdictions (and usually after such
> a long time as to be irrelevant for software). As a consequence, it’s
> impossible to make a globally applicable statement that a certain piece
> of software is in the public domain.
[..]
Best to use a recognized open source license, instead of trying to
declare it as "public domain." I linked to several popular open source
licenses in my other email, such as MIT or BSD.
Jim
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] No simple cpu identification program returning an error code as an answer?
Hi Jim,
> The Creative Commons have identified a "CC-0" ("Creative Commons
> Zero") that indicates "no rights reserved" that does the same thing.
> https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
May I apply CC0 to computer software? If so, is there a recommended
implementation?
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F
Cheers,
Robert
--
BTTR Software https://www.bttr-software.de/
DOS ain't dead https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] No simple cpu identification program returning an error code as an answer?
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:33 PM Bret Johnson wrote:
>
> I'll try to search for an appropriate license and e-mail it to
> you. I've been searching though a little bit of licensing info and
> really didn't know that even declaring that something is "public domain"
> doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. I suspect it may
> ultimately have something to do with the lawyers needing SOMEBODY to
> go after when something goes wrong -- declaring it to be public domain
> doesn't necessarily get you completely "off the hook". I know Jim
> has a significant concern over these kinds of things since he is the
> "face" of FreeDOS.
>[..]
Yes, "public domain" is a tricky thing. I'm not sure when that
changed, but it used to be that you could write a simple statement
saying "I don't care about this, and I release it into the public
domain" and that was fine. Even the FSF folks used to recommend this
for trivial code, in the early 1990s.
The Creative Commons have identified a "CC-0" ("Creative Commons
Zero") that indicates "no rights reserved" that does the same thing.
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
A few open source licenses are popular these days. In no particular order:
MIT - a short license that is pretty broad. I usually release my
"demo" code under this license.
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
BSD - comes in a few "flavors," the most common seems to be the
3-clause license:
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
GNU GPL - a long license, essentially guaranteeing that the source
code can never be made "closed source" or "proprietary." The GNU GPL
v3 is the latest version, and includes new clauses intended to prevent
what the FSF folks call "Tivo-ization." I prefer the GNU GPL v2, which
I find easier to read: (be careful with the "How to Apply These Terms
to Your New Programs" section, as the suggested text says "either
version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" which
means someone can choose to re-release your GNU GPL v2 project under
the GNU GPL v3. That's fine for some, but I prefer to keep GNU GPL v2
only, so now I say "GNU GPL v2 only" in any code I release under the
GNU GPL v2.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
Apache 2.0 - another long license
https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] No simple cpu identification program returning an error code as an answer?
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022, Bret Johnson wrote: I'll try to search for an appropriate license and e-mail it to you. I've been searching though a little bit of licensing info and really didn't know that even declaring that something is "public domain" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. I suspect it may ultimately have something to do with the lawyers needing SOMEBODY to go after when something goes wrong -- declaring it to be public domain doesn't necessarily get you completely "off the hook". I know Jim has a significant concern over these kinds of things since he is the "face" of FreeDOS. We could end up having a long discussion about this (and it might even be worthwhile, or at least entertaining), but it seems to me as though legally they try to classify software as simply another "branch" of writing, with the other major branches being books and music. While they all certainly have "creative" aspects to them and can be "plagiarized" in some sense, they really are different animals and pretending they are the same (even if only in a legal sense) really doesn't seem very logical. Of course, legality and logic don't necessarily need to have anything to do with each other. For example, I know it's a big deal these days for musicians to claim that somebody who disagrees with their politics can't play their songs (at things like political rallies). Basically, they're declaring who can and can't listen to their music. This would be equivalent to book-banning by an author -- the author of a book saying who can and can't read it, or a programmer declaring who can't and can't use their software (even if they pay for it). We're living in a funny world. This is why I use UIUC (for a longer license) or MIT/MIT0 (for a shorter one). Something like this (basically a "MIT0") is just 3 sentences and grants effectively the same rights that would be intended by a "public domain" dedication. This is the UIUC license with the three conditions removed: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the 'Software'), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so. "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS', WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE." There's other ways to word it that would also work. -uso. ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] It's "crynwr.com", not "www.crynwr.com"!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 1:48 PM Robert Riebisch wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > There is a small mistake on the link for crynwr on: > >[..] > Fixed. Thanks for reporting. > Thanks! ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] How to install GCC in FreeDOS? (avoid the segmentation fault when running gcc)
At first I did: fdnpkg install djgpp_gc and then tried: gcc , in some directory... was not working I then "cd c:\devel\djgpp\bin" I then "gcc", but then I got a segmentation fault. I think that after some Google search (did not help)... I saw C:\DJGPP\README.1ST I then: fdnpkg install djgpp fdnpkg install djgpp_bn and added to c:\fdauto.bat (after other set, before aliases): set DJGPP=C:\DEVEL\DJGPP\DJGPP.ENV set PATH=C:\DEVEL\DJGPP\BIN;%PATH% ... reboot after that: gcc --version have given the expected result. Wish to help others get the result faster... either creating a Wiki page would help. Or maybe some line written when installing djgpp_gc?___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] It's "crynwr.com", not "www.crynwr.com"!
Hi Paul, > There is a small mistake on the link for crynwr on: > > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Networking_FreeDOS_-_Packet_driver_installation > section: Where to find them (the packet drivers) > > the crynwr link have www. at the beginning... it does not work because > of that. > The site is really: http://crynwr.com/drivers/00index.html > without www. Fixed. Thanks for reporting. Cheers, Robert -- BTTR Software https://www.bttr-software.de/ DOS ain't dead https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Status of OpenSSL in FreeDOS?
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:50:40 -0700 Ralf Quint wrote: > Well, only the last one would be for DOS and I did not see directly > anything mentioned as to where you get the certificates from... > > > Ralf They're included as "links.crt" with the 7Mb DOS version of Links. The "links-*-lite.exe" is the package without certificates. One could also copy them from /etc/ssl from OpenBSD or some other UNIX. It's just a file that concatenates all the PEM certs. CryptoAncienne is a portable library that targets an older C standard understood by older C compilers. The bulk of the work is done to get a crypto library that can do TLS 1.2 working in DOS. -- WWW: https://metalpunks.info GPG: C90CAB7122AC1231 pgppCVGpDc4li.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] No simple cpu identification program returning an error code as an answer?
I'll try to search for an appropriate license and e-mail it to you. I've been searching though a little bit of licensing info and really didn't know that even declaring that something is "public domain" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. I suspect it may ultimately have something to do with the lawyers needing SOMEBODY to go after when something goes wrong -- declaring it to be public domain doesn't necessarily get you completely "off the hook". I know Jim has a significant concern over these kinds of things since he is the "face" of FreeDOS. We could end up having a long discussion about this (and it might even be worthwhile, or at least entertaining), but it seems to me as though legally they try to classify software as simply another "branch" of writing, with the other major branches being books and music. While they all certainly have "creative" aspects to them and can be "plagiarized" in some sense, they really are different animals and pretending they are the same (even if only in a legal sense) really doesn't seem very logical. Of course, legality and logic don't necessarily need to have anything to do with each other. For example, I know it's a big deal these days for musicians to claim that somebody who disagrees with their politics can't play their songs (at things like political rallies). Basically, they're declaring who can and can't listen to their music. This would be equivalent to book-banning by an author -- the author of a book saying who can and can't read it, or a programmer declaring who can't and can't use their software (even if they pay for it). We're living in a funny world. ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] Ré : Ré : Ré : suggested qemu command line to boot FreeDOS
Just running QEMU with "-net nic,model=pcnet -net user" is not enough. I means, after that if I do "fdnpkg search gcc", it results in "NO PACKET DRIVER". I need to type "fdnet", and then it get an IP address through DHCP... and then "fdnpkg search gcc" works!___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] Status of OpenSSL in FreeDOS?
On 8/28/2022 3:20 PM, Deposite Pirate wrote: On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 11:37:00 -0700 Ralf Quint wrote: d Ever wondered why nobody is really bothering with supporting older browsers and OS with TSL 1.2 or newer (which is necessary to support today's certificates and associated encryption)? https://github.com/classilla/cryanc https://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/releases/tag/2.2 https://msfn.org/board/topic/181853-links-web-browser-community-edition-for-dos-with-tls-12/ Well, only the last one would be for DOS and I did not see directly anything mentioned as to where you get the certificates from... Ralf ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] It's "crynwr.com", not "www.crynwr.com"!
There is a small mistake on the link for crynwr on: http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Networking_FreeDOS_-_Packet_driver_installation section: Where to find them (the packet drivers) the crynwr link have www. at the beginning... it does not work because of that. The site is really: http://crynwr.com/drivers/00index.html without www.___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] Ré : Ré : suggested qemu command line to boot FreeDOS
I added "-net nic,model=pcnet -net user" to allows networking to work (based on: https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-virtualization-and-cloud-90/freedos-in-qemu-no-internet-connection-4175638386/ ) to allows access to the network (which it is said does not work on real hardware for now) So that the line I now use is: qemu-system-i386 -cpu 486 -name FreeDOS -machine pc-i440fx-4.2,accel=kvm,usb=off,dump-guest-core=off -enable-kvm -m 64 -overcommit mem-lock=off -no-user-config -nodefaults -rtc base=utc,driftfix=slew -no-hpet -boot menu=on,strict=on -sandbox on,obsolete=deny,elevateprivileges=deny,spawn=deny,resourcecontrol=deny -msg timestamp=on -drive format=raw,file=fdt2208.img,format=raw -cdrom T2208LIVE.iso -audiodev pa,id=mysnd -device sb16,audiodev=mysnd -device adlib,audiodev=mysnd -machine pcspk-audiodev=mysnd -vga cirrus -display sdl -usbdevice mouse -net nic,model=pcnet -net user make sure to adjust: fdt2208.img and T2208LIVE.iso to what you have. Note: model=e1000 or e1000e: DHCP did not got an address model=tulip, DHCP no address model=rtl8139, results in: QEMU Network detected 0 Match found 1 Match found Bad command or filenname "rtspkt.com". Network is unreachable/unavailable. I guess I will check for an issue about this last one... and add one if I don't find one.___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
