I took a look at XMGR. The charge was only for the book that the source code was published in, with a small fee for the media floppy disks if you wanted to have it in digital form. Linux eventually wrote his own kernel, even reusing minixfs, and made it available under a “free for commercial use” GPL license! If he was “tainted” by something he did either earlier or later , am I now “tainted” too? But even for those few utilities, how would they even transfer? What nefarious agenda is up his sleeve?
|Date Added:||13 September 2006|
|File Size:||24.93 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You are allowed to write your own, even if you have studied someone else’s. If anything, he thrived because so many people saw the usefulness of it.
FreeDOS – User – UltraDMA warning corrected
Got a copy of Linux v0. So Linus was full within the rights granted by Tanenbaum Prentice-Hall as the publisher. The first version available 1. Jack probably talks about this EMM In reply to this post by Bret.
They can never stop you from doing that. Ralf This email has been checked for udka by Avast antivirus software. Yes, Minix was meant to be studied as presumably is all source code that is published unshroudedbut Minix itself was not even freeware.
The only thing you can’t do is copy verbatim large sections of code and redistribute or sell it, at least not without permission. What nefarious agenda is up his sleeve? There’s also a question of the timing, since I think Jack wrote and released those programs and source code before the MS-DOS source code was released unless Jack had gotten access to some MS source code earlier than that.
I target “4th graders”, which some view as insulting. But even for those few utilities, how would they even transfer?
Index of /pub/misc/freedos/files/dos/udma/
I know this seems unfair to some, but we must protect FreeDOS from any accusation that we benefit from proprietary source code. Of course, patents are horrible and purposely overcomplicate everything.
Music On Jan 13, 1: He is not rational, helpful, or anything else “good”. Unless someone can officially prove infringement, then it’s not worth destroying anything just on an unofficial whim.
Ultimate Boot CD
In reply to this post by Louis Santillan. No I don’t think MS will care, but that is not the issue. In reply to this post by Eric Auer-3 There’s also a question of the timing, since I think Jack wrote and released those programs and source code freeds the MS-DOS source code was released unless Jack had gotten access to some MS source code earlier than that.
And even now I don’t trust anything Jack says.
But even though he has been banned after burning all his bridges for literally no good reasonhe is still up to his old tricks. But I still think we’re all overreacting here. They are always allowed to create different even if compatible versions. There just has to be a better explanation for this madness. I tried to tell you this. I’m not saying he used code, in fact I’m claiming the opposite.
How to add UDMA support for freedos using modboot – Ultimate Boot CD
It’s not money I’m talking about but licensing. Reading but not using is not stealing, and proving damages for something like this heavily depends on any commercial use for which there is none for MS-DOS 2. SYS available to programmers in Excerpt from Eric Auer: I am told such knowledge is also called “fruit of the poisonous tree.