On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:54:50 +0100 (MET), you wrote:
Hi,
>our lower manpower should be enough. And of course this project is a challenge
>and fun. Just writing a new Makefile for MS Sources would be a VERY boring way
>to "clone" MS DOS functionality!
IMHO, if the Freedos' programs more superior,
Hi, I fully agree - do not look at MS sources. Otherwise you risk legal
problems like "your stuff is only compatible because you stole the code!".
I hear that most of MS DOS 6.00 (not the 3rd party things) and 3.30 are
"out there". And this new thing which seems to unzip to 0.6 - 2 GB of
code fr
I hope I don't start a flame war on this.
Thought I'd fwd this note that I found on the Groklaw site, usually a
good resource for legal issues dealing with Free and Open Source Software.
You've probably all seen by now that (part of) the source code to
Microsoft's WindowsNT and Windows2000 has
--- Jim Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 的郵件內容：>
Thanks. Since this includes changes, I guess I
> shouldn't consider this
> an "official" release by BAHCL, so I won't mirror it
> on ibiblio.
> However, I will update the news item on FreeDOS.org
> to point to Eric's
> binary-included distribution of PG
---
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:12:19 -0600, Jim Hall wrote:
Indeed, I can't understand why he doesn't want to include binaries?
Well, I've sometimes done that in the past, too, so I can't be too critical of BAHCL. Binaries aren't strictly required by the GNU GPL, and if web space is a problem, I can unde
Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
Hi,
This "written offer" requirement is really scaring indeed. Does the GPL
say that it must be signed and stamped by a notary? Or passed through
the United Nations Security Council? ;-)
Just joking, of course - please don't take the above sentences seriously!
:-)
BTW,
Thanks. Since this includes changes, I guess I shouldn't consider this
an "official" release by BAHCL, so I won't mirror it on ibiblio.
However, I will update the news item on FreeDOS.org to point to Eric's
binary-included distribution of PG.
-jh
Eric Auer wrote:
Hi, I re-packaged PG 1.08 i
>From: Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [Freedos-devel] re: Last "Hello"!
>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:47:10 +0100 (MET)
>
..
>I do not know why none of them made it into the FreeDOS distro. I think
>the Basic interpreter written in Pascal and the text editors and com <-> exe
>are interesting,
Hi, I re-packaged PG 1.08 in FreeDOS package style (standard directory
tree) and added a binary. Please check my changes to PG.MAK and PG.H to
make this possible. In particular, I removed the pathspec for the plugin
and manpage directories. Bad thing, because functions will just fail
SILENTLY if p
Hi!
15-Фев-2004 14:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Hall) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> KJD> please run atapichk.exe from
>> More precise URL, please.
JH> Binary is here:
Thank you, I already sent report to Keneth.
---
SF.Net is sponsor
Hi,
This "written offer" requirement is really scaring indeed. Does the GPL say that it must be signed and stamped by a notary? Or passed through the United Nations Security Council? ;-)
Just joking, of course - please don't take the above sentences seriously!
But including the source with the b
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:47:10 +0100 (MET), Eric Auer wrote:
... Go all you to the devil mothers, and wake for ever accursed that you have
vote against including my programs in FreeDOS new distribution program!
By the way: I do not remember a voting process but even then: Democracy can
suck if peopl
It is mirrored to ibiblio and the odin.fdos mirror site.
(I download it a while back, but forgot to upload it :-)
Jeremy
---
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free D
> --- Eric Auer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>：>
>
>
>>Eric.
>>
>>PS: I would like to have some PG binaries online,
>>too. If nobody else wants
>>to provide some, I could do so, but I am not sure if
>>BAHCL is okay with this!?
>>
This is okay under the GNU GPL, provided the PG binaries are distributed
in
Hi,
I am innocent, I joined this mailing list recently,
and
I am cursed too! My program (the Program CABinet) was
not enlisted either!
BAHCL
_
必殺技、飲歌、小星星...
浪漫鈴聲 情心連繫
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22281/*http://ringtone.yahoo.com.hk/
-
At Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:47am +0200, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Let me remind that the first 720 KB ODIN image I uploaded at
> http://linux.tu-varna.acad.bg/~lig/freedos/ODIN.720 wouldn't work on
> 8086/88 processors but required at least a NEC V20 or 80186/188 because
> I forgot the --8
Hi all, if you have been wondering why and why curses us:
It is Sandul Yura who has offered us 6 FreePascal and 25 Q-Basic
programs on first of November. We had the problem that there is
no Q-Basic for FreeDOS but I do not remember what was wrong with
the Pascal programs.
Programs were: ANSI sequ
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this has been answered before, but is it beter to
> > compile the kernel & freecom under borland c or djgpp?
>
> About FreeCOM: Let its author answer (he knows much better than me ;-)
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/freedos/f
Fuck you all, donkeys, asses, bitchs and curs!
Please sorry for my bad knowing of the english language...
Go all you to the devil mothers, and wake for ever accursed that you have vote
against including my programs in FreeDOS new distribution program! Let on you all
togeth
--- tom ehlert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 的郵件內容：>
Hello maintainer,
>
> >> PS: I would like to have some PG binaries online,
> >> too. If nobody else wants
> >> to provide some, I could do so, but I am not sure
> if
> >> BAHCL is okay with this!?
> >>
>
> mf> those PG binaries will be covered by the G
Hello,
Let me remind that the first 720 KB ODIN image I uploaded at http://linux.tu-varna.acad.bg/~lig/freedos/ODIN.720 wouldn't work on 8086/88 processors but required at least a NEC V20 or 80186/188 because I forgot the --8086 UPX option when compressing the files there. So I re-created it, this
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:09:11 +0200, you wrote:
Hi Lucho,
>I don't think that users should be forced to compile themselves. This is a
>source-only extremism, which is a result of the GPL-RULEZ extremism led to an
>extremum. GPL allows binary distribution as long as the source is included or
>of
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:54:25 +0800 (CST), you wrote:
Hi,
I've compiled the binary, thanks for setting up the batch file.
I think learning is good, I don't mind to learn more. But I don't
think the others have the interest or can spend time to learn how to
use Turbo C. Also another problem is dev
Hello maintainer,
>> PS: I would like to have some PG binaries online,
>> too. If nobody else wants
>> to provide some, I could do so, but I am not sure if
>> BAHCL is okay with this!?
>>
mf> those PG binaries will be covered by the GNU GPL
mf> version 2, and will have a link to the PG website.
25 matches
Mail list logo
