DOS ain't dead

> > There are no recent/revised license docs. But what else could it mean
> when
> > IBM itself posts files?
>
> It means nothing or are unlocked cars at your street free (in the meaning
> of law) to take?

A rather self-restrictive view IMO. If a copyright holder deliberately makes some files available to the public and doesn't include a text describing license conditions, it is safe to assume that the files are free for personal use (something which you cannot assume if you find an unlocked car :)). It's the same as for pictures, texts and other "intellectual property".

---
MS-DOS forever!

> > Unfortunately Johnson is a pirate
>
> He has not killed or robbed anybody, so he does NOT deserve such
> qualifications.

Well, that's the term in common use.

> (You might be mistaking him with Wengier Wu - a big DOS
> expert whom I also respect very much.)

Johnson has posted Wu's "MS-DOS 7", an unauthorized extraction from Windows.

> > PC-DOS remains 16-bit - the v7 was a trick number for what should have
> been 6.4 or 6.5.
>
> PC DOS 7.1, however, fully supports FAT32 and LBA.

Also NTFS disks - IBM uses it to boot its Rescue and Recovery program for Win2K/XP.

> > Unfortunately Johnson is a pirate
>
> He has not killed or robbed anybody, so he does NOT deserve such
> qualifications. (You might be mistaking him with Wengier Wu - a big DOS
> expert

And pirate ...

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

> > > As far as OpenDOS is concerned [snipped] I never understood the
> > licensing (does anyone??)
> >
> > The licensing is complicated, but as AFAIK DR-DOS/OpenDOS 7.01, 7.02
> and
> > 7.03 (pre-Devicelogics) are still free, cerainly for private use.
> Source
> > is free for OpenDOS 7.02.

Oops - I should have written 7.01

> > DRDOS, Inc. can't change licensing for an
> > ancestor of its product that it never owned. If they could, Udo Kuhnt
> > would be in a lot of trouble.
>
> What I've read is debatable (comments from Pat Villani, Japheth, etc), so
> I'm not totally convinced I understand the nature of the whole "OpenDOS"
> mess. Yes, of course, Udo does his thing and no one has complained
> (yet??), but it's still legally murky.

Snipped from the OpenDOS 7.01 source license:

* REDISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE IS PERMITTED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES provided that the copyright notices, marks and these terms
and conditions in this document are duplicated in all such forms and
that the documentaiton, advertising materials, and other materials
related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was
developed by Caldera, Inc.

For the source code license grant, you may:

* modify, translate, compile, disassemble, or create derivative works
based on the Software provided that such modifications are for
non-commercial use and that such modifications are provided back to
Caldera except for those who have obtained the right from Caldera
in writing to retain such modifications; any modification, translation,
compilation, disassembly or derivative work used for commercial gain
requires a seperate license from Caldera;
[End snips]

So it looks to me like Udo is OK, as long as he doesn't charge money for his OS.

> > The licensing is complicated, but as AFAIK DR-DOS/OpenDOS 7.01, 7.02 and
> > 7.03 (pre-Devicelogics) are still free, cerainly for private use.
>
> excerpt from OpenDOS 7.0.1 license.txt:
> (snip)
>
> That's not something I would call "free", not even for "private use" ...
> unless you are a student.

Yeah, I know. The other day I looked it up on the OpenDOS mailing list archives at DJ's site and saved a bunch of links (Session Manager in Firefox). So, I'll be mentioning that here (eventually).

Basically, I think they (Caldera) either had different goals at the beginning than later and / or they changed the license after-the-fact. (That would certainly explain the mass confusion about it on the web.)