DOS ain't dead

Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo , Usono, 14.03.2010, 03:56

> It might be time to take a different approach .. I should probably clean
> the code up and ship source code, not just libraries. I would not want to
> use a library without source, and other people probably don't want to
> either.

There is no easy answer. I don't see any harm in posting sources, esp. if you don't intend to continue development. (For instance, ADOM doesn't want secrets spoiled or too many forks a la Angband, hence why it's still closed.)

> I would like to open source it but retain my personal copyright. I think
> that the GPL version three allows for this.

Not sure what you mean by this. You are always retaining copyright, but with GPL you are letting people use your code in any fashion as long as they don't publicly distribute it without (all total) sources. (GPLv3 combines GPLv2 and LGPL 2.1 into one license, or so I'm told.)

> I realize that some people
> might use the code in a way that might be irritating to me, but there is
> probably more benefit in making it open than not.

In what way? What are you afraid of happening? Both GPLv2 and v3 actually allow others to commercially sell your code. What do you want to happen to it?

> What licenses have people here used for their software? Have their been
> any 'gotchas'? (I am very familiar with open source software, but have
> never tried to maintain my own project.)

FYI, the GPLv3 is heavily shunned by *BSD and its fans (although I don't know why). They stick to GCC 4.2.1 or less (and want Clang or PCC to succeed) due to that. But most main GNU projects themselves are GPLv3 now. Even FreeDOS proper has a heavy GPL bias, esp. for "BASE".

Personally, I think worrying about licenses is a waste of time. But it's your call.

---
Know your limits.h

Complete thread:

• mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 21.01.2010, 18:06
  • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - Japheth, 22.01.2010, 09:47
    • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 22.01.2010, 16:56
      • mTCP DOS TCP/IP apps for small machines - mbbrutman, 07.02.2010, 16:35
    • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 03:22
      • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - Rugxulo, 14.03.2010, 03:56
        • Forget the library .. time to open-source the code? - mbbrutman, 14.03.2010, 15:01
          • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 27.06.2010, 22:27
            • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Rugxulo, 28.06.2010, 06:30
              • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 28.06.2010, 12:05
                • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Arjay, 28.06.2010, 14:22
                  • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 07:08
                    • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 13:14
                      • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:06
                    • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 01.07.2010, 13:20
                      • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 01.07.2010, 16:03
                        • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - Laaca, 01.07.2010, 19:16
                          • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - mbbrutman, 03.07.2010, 16:04
                        • mTCP new release 27/June/2010 - now ported to Open Watcom - DOS386, 14.07.2010, 03:51
  • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 12:41
    • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 16:09
      • mTCP interfacing with TINY remote control for DOS? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:49
  • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 14:07
    • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 15:22
      • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 17:30
        • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - mbbrutman, 20.07.2010, 19:32
          • mTCP DOS - NC documentation issue (design bug)? - Arjay, 20.07.2010, 21:56
          • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 23.07.2010, 07:27
            • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 01:04
              • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 12:12
                • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 15:31
                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 24.07.2010, 15:36
                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 24.07.2010, 16:23
                    • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Japheth, 24.07.2010, 16:57
                      • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 01:35
                        • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - Rugxulo, 25.07.2010, 05:34
                          • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - DOS386, 25.07.2010, 06:16
                            • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" - mbbrutman, 25.07.2010, 17:17
                              • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 26.07.2010, 02:03
                                • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 26.07.2010, 03:11
                                  • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 02:53
                                    • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - mbbrutman, 27.07.2010, 03:31
                                      • FTP ASCII vs binary "image" | NTLFN issues - DOS386, 27.07.2010, 03:40