At 12:08 PM 3/31/2009, Michael Reichenbach wrote: >Eric Auer schrieb: > > Hi Michael, > > > > indeed, MS LFN started with version 7 (Win9x)... > > > >> What about FreeDOS kernel and LFN? Wouldn't it make sense > >> also to add LFN to the FreeDOS kernel? > > > > Yes but: The DOSLFN license does not allow it so you would > > have to re-implement LFN from scratch and there is also a > > risk to get nagging from MS because some LFN things are > > still patented by Microsoft. > >By the way I must repeat the question "who would be theoretically sued?". > >Currently DOSLFN is a part of the FreeDOS 1.0 distribution. If ms has a >patent on LFN then this will be already violated, no matter if LFN >support is in kernel or in an application included in the distribution.
Not being a lawyer, but that I think this could very well be the case... >Not the programmer of DOSLFN would be sued, also probable not the >hypothetical programmer for LFN in DOS-C. > >I think it's the distributor who would get sued and this is in this case >the responsible person for the website. (Fortunally also other people >are redistribution FreeDOS and/or DOSLFN but to sue freedos.org does not >mean that them get also automatically sued.) > >So programming LFN for DOS-C wouldn't make a difference. The risk to get >sued is already there and not bigger because the patent is already >violated so or so. Again, I think you are to "blauäugig" here. Two times wrong doesn't make things right.... And I don't think that Jim is happy with your POV of him being the one being sued and not you... Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
