You mention this a few times in your post: [email protected] wrote:
Any program that works on MS-DOS should also run on FreeDOS.
and
FreeDOS is a complete, free, DOS-compatible operating system. While we provide some utilities, you should be able to run any program intended for MS-DOS.
and
It does not have do with Gnu-linux, matter fact. It is a replacement fo MS-DOS [...]
You seem to maintain that compatibility with Microsoft's DOS is an advantage because FreeDOS allows users to run non-free software (you cited firmware installers as one such program). But you should read the FSF's language on ReactOS at https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#ReactOS which is short so I'll quote it in full here:
ReactOS is meant as a free binary compatible replacement for Windows. Use with proprietary software and drivers meant for Windows is one of the stated goals of the project.
I believe the FSF points this out because from the perspective of software freedom, it is bad to encourage people to run non-free software except for writing a free replacement of the non-free software. Running non-free software means continuing dependency on non-freedom and that non-free software treats its users unjustly. FreeDOS thus becomes a free means by which users can continue being treated unjustly.
Given what you wrote the same would seem to be true of FreeDOS. If it's a stated goal of the FreeDOS project to encourage the user to use proprietary software instead of using FreeDOS to help provide a free software replacement, this could be another reason why FreeDOS would not receive the FSF's endorsement as a recommended free distro despite FreeDOS being licensed to run, share, and modify.
And you can view and edit our source code, because all FreeDOS programs are distributed under the GNU General Public License or a similar open source software license.
You'd also be better off (particularly here, a mailing list for a GNU/Linux distro that celebrates its connection to promoting software freedom) understanding that the author of the GNU GPL (Richard Stallman) has nothing to do with "open source" and that license's only connection to open source is that it happens to meet the qualifications that group set up. The social movement Stallman started -- the Free Software movement -- predates the Open Source developmental philosophy identified by the Open Source Initiative by over a decade, and the GNU GPL encourages something the open source group eschew: software freedom. In fact Stallman goes around the world giving talks explaining that the open source group is a right-wing reactionary group opposed to software freedom (the very principle he advocates for). You can find recordings of these talks in formats that favor free software at https://audio-video.gnu.org/. It's also a good idea to be specific instead of pointing to 'similar' licenses.
