On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:13:07 +0300 (MSK), you wrote:
Hi Arkady,
Thanks for your information :-)
Rgds,
Johnson.
=
>http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/system/compinfos.zip
>http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/system/compinfox.zip
+-
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:55:14 +0300 (MSK), Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
BO> c) APACK stub. Conflicts
[...]
BO>a. do i want to prevent linkage with closed or non-GPL
I think, using exepacker and or archiver _on_ (or joining unpacker _with_) program is not linkage _into_ program.
Yes, I think so, and
Hi!
11-Фев-2004 17:04 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
LG> There is a very good and easy interactive license selector at
LG> http://pgl.yoyo.org/lqr/ but I'd still prefer if we compose one of our own.
LG> More opinions, please!
I against this. GPL is a good
Hi!
11-Фев-2004 12:59 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BO> /EXEPACK can be argued to be normally distributed with the compiler and is
BO> therefore part of the "special exception". Using APACK instead of EXEPACK
BO> is like using a third party RTL instead of the one sh
Hi!
11-Фев-2004 12:42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
LG> WITHOUT the GPL virus effect),
What bad in this "effect"?
---
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps &
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:43:55 + (GMT), Bart Oldeman wrote:
The FreeDOS kernel is released under the GPL and will remain so. Getting
the agreement of all copyright holders (Pat Villani, John Price, ror4,
James Tabor, Tom, Lucho, Martin, many others) to change it is an
impossible task.
OK, I see.
Hi Bryce,
Yes, on that old Zenith. The disk with the 8088 flag booted on it, and it didn't stop at the no hard disks detected message, it continued to boot.
Great! But I didn't change the kernel, just the executable files!
This ODIN seems fully functional on it now, and I have used to to sucsessf
Hi!
11-Фев-2004 07:47 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Nickolas) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SN> I'll admit I don't really care for the GPL much myself. I use it because
SN> it's well-known and gets more support than using an alternative. Me, I
SN> would just take the BSD license and add a clause requi
Hi!
11-Фев-2004 13:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Luchezar Georgiev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
LG>> virus effect), so this "FreeDOS License" becomes yet another item
LG>> in the following rather long list of GPL-compatible licenses?
te> If this license fits on a single page - maybe. If not,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> There is a very good and easy interactive license selector at
> http://pgl.yoyo.org/lqr/ but I'd still prefer if we compose one of our
> own. More opinions, please!
The FreeDOS kernel is released under the GPL and will remain so. Getting
the agreeme
An executable compressor is no different than a compiler/linker.
The exe compressor is a major component of the OS (at least
for the purposes of FreeDOS) just like a compiler/linker.
The major comonents do not have to provide source (it is the
only source exemption in the GPL). Thus the source to
Johnson Lam wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:42:52 +0200, you wrote:
Sorry for breaking in ...
Something immediately come to my mind - to destroy the FREE or OPEN
SOURCE project is very easy.
Somebody appear suddenly, say something to insult/mock/disturb/tease
the developers, challenge their self-r
There is a very good and easy interactive license selector at http://pgl.yoyo.org/lqr/ but I'd still prefer if we compose one of our own. More opinions, please!
Lucho
---
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy
Hello,
[...] You could call the unpacking stub part of what is added due
to the compilation process. Or you could open the sources of the
(usually very short) unpacking stub. In either case you do not need
to open the sources of the executable packer itself.
Joergen wrote that he'd gladly open the
Hi,
It is not easy to define the words 'free' and 'open'.
How free? How open? To what extent?
I don't know if my program developed in a propriatory
OS be defined as 'impure', but all softwares finally
make use of the BIOS that is also not 'free' to my
understanding.
IMHO, without propriatory soft
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:59:27 + (GMT), Bart Oldeman wrote:
it does not allow you to modify the stub. That's the main point.
If this wasn't required by the GPL, why would one want to do that? That stub is very short (between 133 and 340 bytes long) and is so heavily optimised that hardly anyone
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:42:52 +0200, you wrote:
Sorry for breaking in ...
Something immediately come to my mind - to destroy the FREE or OPEN
SOURCE project is very easy.
Somebody appear suddenly, say something to insult/mock/disturb/tease
the developers, challenge their self-respection, trouble
Hi,
comments embedded.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Luchezar Georgiev
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Freedos-devel] Executable compression
>
[...]
>
> People, please express your
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, tom ehlert wrote:
> DT> I heard that you were considering a proprietary executable compression
> DT> scheme for FreeDOS.
> could you explain 'proprietary' ?
>
> is everything non-GPL 'proprietary' ?
proprietary is everything that is (in the eyes of the FSF) not Free
Software.
At Wed, 11 Feb 2004 2:31pm +0200, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:48:57 +0100, Aitor Santamari'a Merino wrote:
>
> > I am for that, because this way we can get rid of at all of these
> > issues about linking, stubbing to non GPL or composing software using
> > tools that are not
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:48:57 +0100, Aitor Santamari'a Merino wrote:
However, what if we compose a special FreeDOS License, best suited to our needs (saying everything about executable packers, library code, inline compiler code, embedded systems use, and so on - all issues that are NOT satisfactor
LG> Sad to see that, Tom! But you're right - there is no logic in
LG> lawyer's thinking.
I'm only a programmer - with a programmer's brain.
Why use licensing terms I can't understand myself?
LG> However, what if we compose a special FreeDOS
LG> License, best suited to our needs (saying everything
Hi all, I think it would feel "more open" to use the open source
(weaker compression) UPX variants. However, I do not think that it
is imperative that GPL software "must" be compiled with compilers
which are open source themselves. It does help a lot to use at least
free compilers (i.e. not TASM /
Luchezar Georgiev escribio':
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:03:11 +0100, tom ehlert wrote:
conclusion of this exepack discussion:
However, what if we compose a special FreeDOS License, best suited to
our needs (saying everything about executable packers, library code,
inline compiler code, embedded sys
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:03:11 +0100, tom ehlert wrote:
conclusion of this exepack discussion:
1) Freedos EMM386 and HIMEM are not GPL (and have never been),
because they are distributed in a compressed format, and the
compressor/decomptressor is PROPRIETARY and not available to the
public.
so lice
conclusion of this exepack discussion:
1) Freedos EMM386 and HIMEM are not GPL (and have never been),
because they are distributed in a compressed format, and the
compressor/decomptressor is PROPRIETARY and not available to the
public.
so licensing will change.
2) same for MKEYB, as I reserve th
26 matches
Mail list logo
