> With respects to DOS-C, if loading non GPL drivers really did violate > GPL, then it would have never been released under GPL.
The GPL's text is huge and complicated, if you weren't aware of a violation you might have released program X under GPL though it actually violated the license somehow. > The comparison > of drivers to OSLib is an apples and oranges comparison. I compared DOS device drivers to the native applications and drivers of FreeDOS-32. (OSLib only comes in as FreeDOS-32 is currently based on it.) > A DOS > loadable device driver is simply an executable that is loaded into > memory that follows a certain calling convention. Depending on the executable type, it may be relocated by the kernel. > FreeDOS, or any GPLed MS-DOS alternative, would be totally useless if > it disallowed non GPL device drivers, since the vast majority of > device drivers are non GPL. Of course. But please read that discussion first and then tell us it doesn't apply: http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=6796&page=0&category=0&order=last_answer > Besides, Richard Stallman is well aware > of our project and would have contacted us if he felt we were doing > something wrong. I wasn't aware Richard Stallman is a DOS internals expert. Please don't argue by showing me people which don't believe in something, rather, stay with actual facts about the kernel and device driver interface or the GPL. Regards, Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
