Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Eric, what I meant is: see how many people writes to us telling that the MS-DOS-style MENUing in CONFIG.SYS does not work in FreeDOS, so I guess we would be flooded with messages like: I wrote with LFNs to a disk, and Windows no longer recognises the filenames, and has the FILE4~1.TXT form instead. Aitor 2009/4/9 Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de: Hi Aitor, But then it wouldn't be compatible with the LFN that came with Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based... ... I think a descript.ion file based driver to support long file names would be a fine idea indeed :-). And it would avoid the ugly kludgy way in which MS stores LFN spread over multiple directory entries. Well actually that is what I meant - descript.ion is a classic for some shells and file managers, but it is also a nice way to store long file names in filesystem independent way and without having to implement any kludgy patented VFAT style LFN storage. With a driver showing the usual int 21 LFN interface to the apps but using descript.ion instead of LFN fragment direntry chains for the actual LFN storage, we can have more free, more open and more portable long file names :-). On the down side, the driver will not read or write VFAT LFNs for you, so if you want to let Windows and DOS access the same drive, you would not share LFNs. This includes USB drives and MP3 player devices and similar, but not for example CD / DVD which use non-VFAT LFNs anyway for which DOS uses separate drivers anyway... In short: If you want VFAT then the only way to get it is to use VFAT, but that might have licensing issues if you use DOS in your embedded device. If you only want LFN, you can get it even in a way that makes LFN DOS apps happy without having to touch VFAT data structures, using a descript.ion based LFN API driver :-). Eric -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
On Mar 31, 2009, at 1:52 PM, usul wrote: There is always another way to do it. receiving a long file name in a long file name format; storing the received long file name in a first file entry of the tree structure along with a file storage indicator indicating the location of the file in the memory; automatically generating a short file name in a short file name format; and storing the generated short file name in a second file entry of the tree structure along with the file storage indicator indicating the location of the file in the memory, the second file entry being different from the first file entry; and now I dont understand legalees but I speak geek this is talking about storing values in tree, I am assuming thats is in the FAT itself So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. in that database/table we could also add fields for whatever we want. could even extend it to give linux like attributes. to help with porting etc then in the kernal FAT code go lookup values in that table intercept calls and redirect them to and from our storage. instead of FAT. if we need to sync them make that a separate TSR and keep it out of the Kernel. same result different method. I could be way off base here not knowing DOS programming nor legaleese. But still different method and system is still different. I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent. This is basically what the file descript.ion used by the command.com replacement 4dos does, and it worked just fine, so yes, something like that could easily be done. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Travis Siegel wrote: Personally, I fail to see how lfn could be patented in the first place. US Patent Law is screwed up. For example the company that I just left has a patent on putting hardware on carts for delivery to clients. Something like that should never have been allowed. But even if its wrong we have to follow it if there is ever a chance that FreeDos end users are ever to be more than a few hobby users. And who knows, if we come up with an elegant solution Linux and other Open Source OSes will pick it up and vendors and users like TomTom will be safe. FreeDos, since it only uses FAT is probably closer to the problem than most. The best work around solution will probably come from here. Just my two cents :) usul -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Couldn't there be a optional syncfat program that one could run at the boot of freedos, and before shut down? Could synchronize the FreeDos LFN and the M$ Dos storages mediums. It may not,since isn't live access, violate the patent. Many Programs write/read directly to and from the fat tables without violating the patent. CD/DVD Burners etc This program could then be run before and after legacy LFN apps in a bat file. MyProggy.Bat syncfat.exe myproggy.exe syncfat.exe There could be switches to do a full, one direction only, certain directories. For speed. Adam Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based... -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Hi Aitor, But then it wouldn't be compatible with the LFN that came with Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based... ... I think a descript.ion file based driver to support long file names would be a fine idea indeed :-). And it would avoid the ugly kludgy way in which MS stores LFN spread over multiple directory entries. Well actually that is what I meant - descript.ion is a classic for some shells and file managers, but it is also a nice way to store long file names in filesystem independent way and without having to implement any kludgy patented VFAT style LFN storage. With a driver showing the usual int 21 LFN interface to the apps but using descript.ion instead of LFN fragment direntry chains for the actual LFN storage, we can have more free, more open and more portable long file names :-). On the down side, the driver will not read or write VFAT LFNs for you, so if you want to let Windows and DOS access the same drive, you would not share LFNs. This includes USB drives and MP3 player devices and similar, but not for example CD / DVD which use non-VFAT LFNs anyway for which DOS uses separate drivers anyway... In short: If you want VFAT then the only way to get it is to use VFAT, but that might have licensing issues if you use DOS in your embedded device. If you only want LFN, you can get it even in a way that makes LFN DOS apps happy without having to touch VFAT data structures, using a descript.ion based LFN API driver :-). Eric -- This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
But then it wouldn't be compatible with the LFN that came with Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based... Aitor 2009/4/2 Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de: Hi! So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. In reality, though, linux filesystem drivers have been using this method of accessing/writing long filenames for years; if Microsoft were to go after an operating system, it would be linux first. And as Eric pointed out to me, they seem to go more after embedded devices that use long filenames on FAT filesystems. So really, I don't think there's anything to worry about. I think a descript.ion file based driver to support long file names would be a fine idea indeed :-). And it would avoid the ugly kludgy way in which MS stores LFN spread over multiple directory entries. Eric -- ___ 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
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Hi! So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. In reality, though, linux filesystem drivers have been using this method of accessing/writing long filenames for years; if Microsoft were to go after an operating system, it would be linux first. And as Eric pointed out to me, they seem to go more after embedded devices that use long filenames on FAT filesystems. So really, I don't think there's anything to worry about. I think a descript.ion file based driver to support long file names would be a fine idea indeed :-). And it would avoid the ugly kludgy way in which MS stores LFN spread over multiple directory entries. Eric -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Norton utilities used to put a text file on each dir with long descriptive names. Also remember umsdos file system used to emulate unix file system over fat16 including long names and permissions 2009/4/1, Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de: Hi! So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. In reality, though, linux filesystem drivers have been using this method of accessing/writing long filenames for years; if Microsoft were to go after an operating system, it would be linux first. And as Eric pointed out to me, they seem to go more after embedded devices that use long filenames on FAT filesystems. So really, I don't think there's anything to worry about. I think a descript.ion file based driver to support long file names would be a fine idea indeed :-). And it would avoid the ugly kludgy way in which MS stores LFN spread over multiple directory entries. Eric -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Marco A. Achury Tel: +58-(212)-6158777 Cel: +58-(414)-3142282 Fax: +58-(212)-2410828 Skype: marcoachury www.geocities.com/marcoachury -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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. For now, the DOSLFN way works very well, although not perfect, for my few LFN needs. What is the non-theoretic scare that you have? Do you think if YOU going to implement LFN then it will be personally YOU how get sued? If it is not YOU who is it then? FreeDOS is actually not a cooperate or something else. Otherwise I would say that if you are scared of Microsoft patents then you can publish nothing you have developed. Because 1) Not only Microsoft has patents, many others have also. 2) Microsoft is not the only patent nitpicker. 3) pathenthese is the most hard language, quote of an engineer I wouldn't recognize my own constructions in phathenthese. 4) Microsoft has even a patent on double clicks 5) Microsoft has still the FAT patent and used it to extort TomTom recently. 6) There are even more patents then laws. If you want to read and understand all patents and have them in back mind while programming... That's simply not possible because ordinary human brain can not remember so many things at the same time (already theoretically assumed that you can even understand the patents). 7) Patents are prohibitions only. It's like do this not, do this not, do this not, etc.. Humans brain works on imagination, it's not possible to imagine nothing because the whole life exists and it is always something. Keep of the grass! as a alone sentence is not effective, rather it should be Use the footpath. because this is something you can imagine. It's not possible to invert or implement something if you brain is full with don't do this while at the same time there is not alternative do it like this for so many things. From that view it's not possible for non-cooperates (individual hobbyist projects) to develop and publish software. You would always need a legal department which is telling it's ok to violate patents, if them are are accusing us we will accuse them with out collection of patents or we will let us extort and pay them, followed by as long no one accusing us it's all fine. In a cooperate you have as a programmer the additional advantage that the legal department exists out of lawyers and in case of court ruling only the cooperate is sued but not the individual programmer. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 10:04 AM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: Otherwise I would say that if you are scared of Microsoft patents then you can publish nothing you have developed. Because You should really read up before you make such statements... 1) Not only Microsoft has patents, many others have also. That is correct... 2) Microsoft is not the only patent nitpicker. That is correct for the most part as well... 5) Microsoft has still the FAT patent and used it to extort TomTom recently. Microsoft does not have a 'FAT patent'. It has exactly 4 patents which in fact are in regards of long file names on FAT32 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5745902U.S. Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5579517U.S. Patent 5,579,517 Common name space for long and short filenames - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5758352U.S. Patent 5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6286013U.S. Patent 6,286,013 Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system There is no patent on the actual technique and data structures used to handle/maintain FAT12/16/32 FAT tables (and the DOS standard 8.3 type file names) Also, IBM holds a patent for non-DOS extensions in the use of FAT file systems http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5367671U.S. Patent 5,367,671 System for accessing extended object attribute (EA) data through file name or EA handle linkages in path tables. 6) There are even more patents then laws. If you want to read and understand all patents and have them in back mind while programming... That's simply not possible because ordinary human brain can not remember so many things at the same time (already theoretically assumed that you can even understand the patents). Patents are work protected by laws... 7) Patents are prohibitions only. It's like do this not, do this not, do this not, etc.. Humans brain works on imagination, it's not possible to imagine nothing because the whole life exists and it is always something. Keep of the grass! as a alone sentence is not effective, rather it should be Use the footpath. because this is something you can imagine. It's not possible to invert or implement something if you brain is full with don't do this while at the same time there is not alternative do it like this for so many things. You have to obey the laws that protect the patents. If you like it or not. If not, you have to be ready to face the consequences. That there might not be immediate consequences for everyone doesn't mean that you can just disobey the laws... From that view it's not possible for non-cooperates (individual hobbyist projects) to develop and publish software. You would always need a legal department which is telling it's ok to violate patents, if them are are accusing us we will accuse them with out collection of patents or we will let us extort and pay them, followed by as long no one accusing us it's all fine. In a cooperate you have as a programmer the additional advantage that the legal department exists out of lawyers and in case of court ruling only the cooperate is sued but not the individual programmer. Just because you are not a business entity doesn't mean that laws don't apply to you. In regards to having a legal department, that's why the OSF has one for Open Source projects... Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Question on these as I don't really understand. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5745902U.S. Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5579517U.S. Patent 5,579,517 Common name space for long and short filenames - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5758352U.S. Patent 5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6286013U.S. Patent 6,286,013 Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system There is no patent on the actual technique and data structures used to handle/maintain FAT12/16/32 FAT tables (and the DOS standard 8.3 type file names) Also, IBM holds a patent for non-DOS extensions in the use of FAT file systems http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5367671U.S. Patent 5,367,671 System for accessing extended object attribute (EA) data through file name or EA handle linkages in path tables. Are these patents on a technique or on the concept? with a technique we can just do different can't we? just read the patent and come up with another way to do it. Or am I completely uninformed? -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
As an American I was under the impression that the European Union decided that software methodologies were not patentable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent Even if someone files a patent - infringement cases are not enforced by the government patent office but by the patent holder. Often patents are filed which are invalid because of prior art. Then when the patent holder goes after some one for infringing the defense is to prove prior public existance of the technique. The patent does not last as long as a copyright. for US patents after 1995 the term is 20 years which conforms to the world patent policy. Prior to 1861 US patents had terms not exceeding fourteen years with an additional seven year extension. From 1861 to 1995 the term of the patent in the US was 17 years. So software patents issued prior to 1988 should have expired. This may apply to a lot of DOS related patents. This wikipedia article is a pretty good discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States ~~~ Bonnie Dalzell, MA mail:5100 Hydes Rd PO Box 60, Hydes,MD,USA 21082-0060|EMAIL:bdalz...@qis.net freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog breeder, computer nerd iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com. Editor Net.Pet Online Animal Magazine - http://www.netpetmagazine.com HOME http://www.qis.net/~borzoi/ BUSINESS http://www.batw.com -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 11:16 AM 3/31/2009, usul wrote: Question on these as I don't really understand. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5745902U.S. Patent 5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5579517U.S. Patent 5,579,517 Common name space for long and short filenames - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5758352U.S. Patent 5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6286013U.S. Patent 6,286,013 Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system There is no patent on the actual technique and data structures used to handle/maintain FAT12/16/32 FAT tables (and the DOS standard 8.3 type file names) Also, IBM holds a patent for non-DOS extensions in the use of FAT file systems http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5367671U.S. Patent 5,367,671 System for accessing extended object attribute (EA) data through file name or EA handle linkages in path tables. Are these patents on a technique or on the concept? with a technique we can just do different can't we? just read the patent and come up with another way to do it. Or am I completely uninformed? Is this case, it is the concept of how to accomplish a certain task. So there isn't really another way to do it. And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names and Extended Attributs as covered by those patents. Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Ralf A. Quint schrieb: From that view it's not possible for non-cooperates (individual hobbyist projects) to develop and publish software. You would always need a legal department which is telling it's ok to violate patents, if them are are accusing us we will accuse them with out collection of patents or we will let us extort and pay them, followed by as long no one accusing us it's all fine. In a cooperate you have as a programmer the additional advantage that the legal department exists out of lawyers and in case of court ruling only the cooperate is sued but not the individual programmer. Just because you are not a business entity doesn't mean that laws don't apply to you. That's very true. However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones). As I live in Germany I see no reason to ensure to follow all US laws (no racism or whatever here, just the same way I do not ensure it for any other country where I do not life). It seams to me that following additionally US laws (whenever not living their anyway) is demanding here as a must. There is no logical derivation that it's more important to follow own laws + national laws + additionally US laws. Why on earth additionally the US laws? China has much more habitants and no one here seams interested whenever we break some of their laws. Because USA is English? No good argument because UK is also English and lots of other countrys also. There are also loads of theocratical states and I am sure we are violating some of their laws because we don't praise their religion. With all those (foreign) patents and laws I feel kinda swamped. The even more complicated thing is that there is no way to ask is this allowed or is it censored?. You can publish your work and let others recognize it and after years the nitpicking begins. Life is thought, there is no way to be secure. Like I did say, from that view, I wonder how it's possible to develop and publish software as freeware or Open Source as individual without a cooperate and a legal department to hide behind. In regards to having a legal department, that's why the OSF has one for Open Source projects... What do you mean with OSF? Open Software Foundation? -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names and Extended Attributs as covered by those patents. What about the way UMSDOS used to do it in linux? -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
There is always another way to do it. receiving a long file name in a long file name format; storing the received long file name in a first file entry of the tree structure along with a file storage indicator indicating the location of the file in the memory; automatically generating a short file name in a short file name format; and storing the generated short file name in a second file entry of the tree structure along with the file storage indicator indicating the location of the file in the memory, the second file entry being different from the first file entry; and now I dont understand legalees but I speak geek this is talking about storing values in tree, I am assuming thats is in the FAT itself So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. in that database/table we could also add fields for whatever we want. could even extend it to give linux like attributes. to help with porting etc then in the kernal FAT code go lookup values in that table intercept calls and redirect them to and from our storage. instead of FAT. if we need to sync them make that a separate TSR and keep it out of the Kernel. same result different method. I could be way off base here not knowing DOS programming nor legaleese. But still different method and system is still different. I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent. So educate me why am I wrong. :) -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 11:36 AM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: In regards to having a legal department, that's why the OSF has one for Open Source projects... What do you mean with OSF? Open Software Foundation? Correct. However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones). As I live in Germany I see no reason to ensure to follow all US laws (no racism or whatever here, just the same way I do not ensure it for any other country where I do not life). It seams to me that following additionally US laws (whenever not living their anyway) is demanding here as a must. There is no logical derivation that it's more important to follow own laws + national laws + additionally US laws. Why on earth additionally the US laws? China has much more habitants and no one here seams interested whenever we break some of their laws. Because USA is English? No good argument because UK is also English and lots of other countrys also. There are also loads of theocratical states and I am sure we are violating some of their laws because we don't praise their religion. With all those (foreign) patents and laws I feel kinda swamped. With that attitude and mindset, you should seriously refrain from participating in the FreeDOS project, as that could implicate that you are adding code to the FreeDOS project that is in violation of foreign laws, not only those in the USA, but in Europe as well. And this would mean that the code you provide could get unexpecting users in those regions of the world in trouble, not to mention that this could lead to a cease and desist order against the project as a whole, specially when seeing requests like LFN in the kernel... Even though the possibility of such consequences is not very high, it still exists, and people should be so responsible to take those things into account... And the fact that patents have been granted in the USA doesn't mean that there isn't an equivalent patent, probably issued at a late date, is not granted in other regions as well. I am not certain about those Microsoft patent in question, but I know from personal experience with the LZW patent that effected the use of GIF, expired in the USA in 2003, but was valid in Europe and Japan 'til 2004. And the recent shift in the view on software patents in Europe (which doesn't void them there per se!) doesn't effect any patent granted more than 5-6 years ago, which as someone else pointed out, would be valid for 20 years... Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
usul schrieb: I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent. So educate me why am I wrong. :) Well, the final verdict gives always the court. Unfortunately not always the logic wins. (I haven't said anything about bribemoney!) It also depends on the technical understanding of the court. Whenever theoretically someone would claim you are violating our patents, stop it for we sue you it questionable if the sabre rattle was already enough for the extortion and if ever a court would have the chance to judge. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 11:52 AM 3/31/2009, usul wrote: same result different method. I could be way off base here not knowing DOS programming nor legaleese. But still different method and system is still different. I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent. So educate me why am I wrong. :) Well, while you do have one point here, you are missing a very important one: Whatever you implement this way is not compatible with anything existing and therefor kind of defeating the (intended) purpose... Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 11:36 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote: And this means that basically implementing FAT12/16/32 in order to store and retrieve files, while using the old 8.3 filename scheme, in FreeDOS is perfectly fine, you just can't implement long file names and Extended Attributs as covered by those patents. What about the way UMSDOS used to do it in linux? I am not a legal expert, but I could see that this is possibly infringement of one of those patents, as the patents cover the methodology not the implementation. Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 11:59 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote: So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. In reality, though, linux filesystem drivers have been using this method of accessing/writing long filenames for years; if Microsoft were to go after an operating system, it would be linux first. And as Eric pointed out to me, they seem to go more after embedded devices that use long filenames on FAT filesystems. So really, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Well, as I tried to point out in my other reply, the problem is that if you want to be at least write compatible with the Windows 9x/ME way of long file names, you do not have another way to do it. Mac HFS had long file names (ok, 31 characters instead of the old 8.3) before, so does Unix or other operating systems. But what is sought by most people is a way of handling long file names the way Windows/M$ does and that you can not really handle without interferring with the patents. I am not 100% certain but the reason that Linux get's away with this is that here the cross-licensing between Microsoft and Novell comes into play... Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Whenever theoretically someone would claim you are violating our patents, stop it for we sue you it questionable if the sabre rattle was already enough for the extortion and if ever a court would have the chance to judge. I would stand my ground if I knew that I took the time to avoid the patent do the work correctly. Even if there were no help for legal funds from the Open Source Community If I can read a manual, I could read an appeal and file it. I see to many people tuck tail and run at the saber rattling. In the US a LLC. would protect from any personal liability. Not that they come after the programmers anyway. Its the end users they go after. I am thinking though since the GPL is a way to turn the patent system vs itself to protect open source. There has to be a way to also protect the liability of developers and end users as well. Like the licence to use the software turns the liability of the debt to something not tied to anyone and which owns nothing. IDK something. I would feel guilty if I developed something that hurt a company later on. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
By the way I must repeat the question who would be theoretically sued?. I would think the end users. For Example: Companies that distribute new PCs with FreeDos installed. someone that sold FreeDos on a bootable USB Someone that sold and built CD for open source. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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 CD would mean not distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version. 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/) When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. 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. -jh -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Ralf A. Quint schrieb: However, I just care about laws in my own country (and the national ones). As I live in Germany I see no reason to ensure to follow all US laws (no racism or whatever here, just the same way I do not ensure it for any other country where I do not life). It seams to me that following additionally US laws (whenever not living their anyway) is demanding here as a must. There is no logical derivation that it's more important to follow own laws + national laws + additionally US laws. Why on earth additionally the US laws? China has much more habitants and no one here seams interested whenever we break some of their laws. Because USA is English? No good argument because UK is also English and lots of other countrys also. There are also loads of theocratical states and I am sure we are violating some of their laws because we don't praise their religion. With all those (foreign) patents and laws I feel kinda swamped. With that attitude and mindset, you should seriously refrain from participating in the FreeDOS project, as that could implicate that you are adding code to the FreeDOS project that is in violation of foreign laws, not only those in the USA, but in Europe as well. And this would mean that the code you provide could get unexpecting users in those regions of the world in trouble, not to mention that this could lead to a cease and desist order against the project as a whole, specially when seeing requests like LFN in the kernel... Even though the possibility of such consequences is not very high, it still exists, and people should be so responsible to take those things into account... FreeDOS has so many contributors (it's a big distro with many applications from outside programmers) and not all of them will have ensured to follow all the laws in all countrys of the world. To want to satisfy everyones needs in a nice attitude but practical impossible. In the end the legal risks get caught on 1) the distributor of the software (He needs to ensure to follow the laws valid to him as far this is possible and relatively. How relatively is it to waste the whole life with reading laws and patents to get accused later because it was wrong after best trying anyway.) 2) The downloader must also ensure that it's legal to download for him and to follow his laws. The downloader doesn't get any trouble with patents as he is not distributing something. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 12:30 PM 3/31/2009, Jim Hall wrote: When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. 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. Well, they settled the legal dispute apparently yesterday, with TomTom paying license fees as well as removing the offending code from its Linux kernel. This is according to the article below also effecting future upstream Linux kernel changes... http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Ralf A. Quint schrieb: 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. Again, I think you are to blauäugig here. Two times wrong doesn't make things right I don't understand this sentence. What's 2 times wrong? And I don't think that Jim is happy with your POV of him being the one being sued and not you... My point of view doesn't matter if I am wrong and even my reality doesn't change the absolute reality. That I may be wrong I regard as possible, otherwise the whole discussion makes no point. To be honest, I would be happy if it turns into Jim is not responsible. Unfortunately I do not see an indicator for that but I am glad to get prof wrong. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
usul schrieb: By the way I must repeat the question who would be theoretically sued?. I would think the end users. For Example: Companies that distribute new PCs with FreeDos installed. someone that sold FreeDos on a bootable USB Someone that sold and built CD for open source. And why not the distributor? I also think it makes no difference whenever your charge money or not, the distribution is the important point. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Does that mean everyone has to take out DOSLFN? From linux and freedos? Maybe this is also a dumb question but is it possible to run FreeDos on a different File System? liek on of the linux ones and still be able to run/use most dos programs? -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
I just missed it thats all, :) -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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 CD 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
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
Well, it would be theoretically possible to implement something like ext3 as most DOS applications use the filesystem API and not the disk directly, them wouldn't recognize. But this wouldn't be a good solution as there are still much more other patents we might have not considered yet. -mr usul schrieb: Does that mean everyone has to take out DOSLFN? From linux and freedos? Maybe this is also a dumb question but is it possible to run FreeDos on a different File System? liek on of the linux ones and still be able to run/use most dos programs? -- ___ 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
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
-Original Message- From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility? ... If LFN support were part of the kernel, a CD would mean not distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version. 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/) When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. 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. That settled today, with TomTom paying M$ and undisclosed amount of money, and some cross-licensing agreements for some of the patents that each of them owns, and TomTOm has to stop using the patents in question within 2 years. A big difference, though: TomTom was making money off it, while FreeDOS does not. D -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
But this wouldn't be a good solution as there are still much more other patents we might have not considered yet. But I believe there is enough usage of the Linux file systems to make this a less than likely target. And FAT = Microsoft so it was easy for them to use that as a target. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
David C. Kerber schrieb: -Original Message- From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility? ... If LFN support were part of the kernel, a CD would mean not distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version. 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/) When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. 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. That settled today, with TomTom paying M$ and undisclosed amount of money, and some cross-licensing agreements for some of the patents that each of them owns, and TomTOm has to stop using the patents in question within 2 years. A big difference, though: TomTom was making money off it, while FreeDOS does not. D I do not see the difference between money and no money, you have to explain it. FreeDOS can be also seen as possible factor for less sold and used copys of Windows, because the time people using FreeDOS them are not using Windows and therefore less money with additional products and support. FreeDOS can be Microsoft a thorn in the eye, even if it doesn't coast money. The questionable part is if them would theoretically try it? It's not good press to fight against individuals not charging money and not much money get out of them. -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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. right. If LFN support were part of the kernel, a CD would mean not distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version. this might also make life slightly more 'dangerous' for FreeDOS users like motherboard manufacturers that ship a FreeDOS CD/ISO to burn the BIOS system manufacturers (Dell etc.) that put a FreeDOS distribution CD close to the machine FreeDOS based recovery tools ... 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. When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. right. Tom -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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. -jh -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
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
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 12:59 PM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: Ralf A. Quint schrieb: 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. Again, I think you are to blauäugig here. Two times wrong doesn't make things right I don't understand this sentence. What's 2 times wrong? Sorry, looks like you are not aware of that saying, and I do not recall the equivalent German version. Basically, if you are doing something the wrong way, it doesn't become right just because you keep doing it... I think you are far too naive when it comes to the possible consequences of thinking the way you do... Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: David C. Kerber schrieb: -Original Message- From: Jim Hall [mailto:jh...@freedos.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:30 PM To: freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility? ... If LFN support were part of the kernel, a CD would mean not distributing the FreeDOS kernel itself. And that might make it very difficult to replace the distro with a non-LFN version. 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/) When others have asked me, I have recommended a wait and see approach. As others have pointed out, Microsoft will go after Linux first, so if Linux loses the fight, FreeDOS can simply remove DOSLFN and move on with plain non-LFN FAT. 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. That settled today, with TomTom paying M$ and undisclosed amount of money, and some cross-licensing agreements for some of the patents that each of them owns, and TomTOm has to stop using the patents in question within 2 years. A big difference, though: TomTom was making money off it, while FreeDOS does not. D I do not see the difference between money and no money, you have to explain it. FreeDOS can be also seen as possible factor for less sold and used copys of Windows, because the time people using FreeDOS them are not using Windows and therefore less money with additional products and support. FreeDOS can be Microsoft a thorn in the eye, even if it doesn't coast money. The questionable part is if them would theoretically try it? It's not good press to fight against individuals not charging money and not much money get out of them. Incidently have you all seen this article: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6694/1/ My use of Freedos comes because I have a legacy DOS application to run that does NOT run under any version of windows later than 98. So my use does not conflict with the sale of any windows version that M$ currently is willing to sell and support. The first version of windows was released in 1985 and if the file system description was patented then - those patents are now expired. That should pretty much cover problems with 8 plus 3 file names. The long file names appear to come in with windows 95. the question becomes when were the windows 95 file sustems patents filed Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents - developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago. Extended partitions were introduced in 1986. Again just 3 years more than 20 years ago. MSDOS 3.3 is Aug of 1987. File Allocation Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table the part of this page in the section Long file names suggests to me that the LFN was available before windows 95 was released. I wonder how close this patent is to expiration and if M$ went to court to try and wring a last bit of money out of it and upset the open source community? -mr -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ~~~ Bonnie Dalzell, MA mail:5100 Hydes Rd PO Box 60, Hydes,MD,USA 21082-0060|EMAIL:bdalz...@qis.net freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog breeder, computer nerd iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com. Editor Net.Pet Online Animal Magazine - http://www.netpetmagazine.com HOME http://www.qis.net/~borzoi/ BUSINESS http://www.batw.com -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
At 05:59 PM 3/31/2009, Bonnie Dalzell wrote: Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents - developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago. Extended partitions were introduced in 1986. Again just 3 years more than 20 years ago. MSDOS 3.3 is Aug of 1987. File Allocation Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table the part of this page in the section Long file names suggests to me that the LFN was available before windows 95 was released. I wonder how close this patent is to expiration and if M$ went to court to try and wring a last bit of money out of it and upset the open source community? Again, those 4 patents are referring to long file names (which first became available with Windows 95) and have been filed between 1992 and 1997, so they are in effect 'til 2012/2017... Ralf -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Ralf A. Quint wrote: At 05:59 PM 3/31/2009, Bonnie Dalzell wrote: Here is a table with timelines. It would appear that FA12T patents - developd in 1980 would be expired. FAT 16 was introduced in 1984 along with MSDOS 3.0 - again more than 20 years ago. Extended partitions were introduced in 1986. Again just 3 years more than 20 years ago. MSDOS 3.3 is Aug of 1987. File Allocation Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table the part of this page in the section Long file names suggests to me that the LFN was available before windows 95 was released. I wonder how close this patent is to expiration and if M$ went to court to try and wring a last bit of money out of it and upset the open source community? Again, those 4 patents are referring to long file names (which first became available with Windows 95) and have been filed between 1992 and 1997, so they are in effect 'til 2012/2017... Ralf TomTom settled because it was cheaper to pay a licensing fee than to go to court. Since it did not go to court there has been no ruling on the validity of the patent. However lawyers in the Free Software community state that they still reguard the FAT patents as weak and challengable under prior art. Here is an article: OIN: TomTom settlement is no win for Microsoft, expect challenge http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3849 -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ~~~ Bonnie Dalzell, MA mail:5100 Hydes Rd PO Box 60, Hydes,MD,USA 21082-0060|EMAIL:bdalz...@qis.net freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog breeder, computer nerd iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com. Editor Net.Pet Online Animal Magazine - http://www.netpetmagazine.com HOME http://www.qis.net/~borzoi/ BUSINESS http://www.batw.com -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
