Hi again, On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 5:01 PM Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 5:56 PM Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I've had conversations with the FSF about > > getting FreeDOS listed on their Free Non-GNU Distributions page. It's not > > going to happen. > > > > The last time I discussed this with the FSF, the FSF Licensing rep > > responded to say (paraphrasing) "But FreeDOS exists to prop up proprietary > > DOS applications." > > > > I replied that there's no point in being a "Free DOS" if FreeDOS can't run > > DOS programs. But the FSF's view seems to be that if FreeDOS aims to run > > proprietary DOS programs, then FreeDOS is basically supporting/endorsing > > proprietary software. They stopped responding to emails after that. > > > > Unfortunately, this is not the first time that's happened, so I've given up > > trying to get FreeDOS listed on the FSF's page.
Despite those emails, their attitude may be too cynical. In fact, I can prove it is. Trisquel just released 9.0, and I'm temporarily booting a USB jump drive with it right now (32-bit, MATE) on my wired Lenovo desktop. I'm in ABrowser (Firefox 81.0.2 rebranded). AFAIK, it's based upon latest Ubuntu LTS, but while they do prune their repositories to remove non-free stuff, you can at least grab DOSBox [GPL]. No DOSEMU nor DOSEMU2 found, but at least that exists. (It works with PSR Invaders, but I didn't test beyond that.) * https://trisquel.info/ Trisquel is 100% approved by FSF and sold on refurbished laptops ("Respects Your Freedom"). So, unless you think it's a mistake or that Trisquel doesn't care (unlikely, their 7z [sic] lacks non-free RAR v3 support), they aren't THAT picky about "some" DOS support (compatible OS software interrupts, EXE file formats, etc), even if you have to supply your own "games" (which??). EDIT: Engrampa [GUI archiver] seems to unpack Blocek's RAR just fine, no idea if that was a mistake or not. (There was one rare, "open source" MacOS app that had UnRAR v3 support, but I thought it was Objective-C. Not sure on where this support came from.) * http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html (Long story short: my mother uses an ancient laptop booting from USB with Lubuntu 18.04.4 32-bit that I installed for her via RUFUS. I swapped around and tested a few other distros, including this one [wireless didn't work], but for now, she seems happy with Lubuntu. Unfortunately, 32-bit has been deprecated and won't be supported in another year. Only that older major version works. Her cpu is 64-bit capable, but others I tried, even latest Ubuntu LTS, were too sluggish for her ["only" 2 GB RAM, single core]. She's also very stubborn, so it's hard to get her to buy or use other machines. I myself had good success, even on my problematic old Dell laptop [Broadcom firmware, ugh], with antiX Linux 32-bit (and Xenial Puppy 64-bit). antiX comes with DOSBox installed by default, last I checked, but I haven't tried 19.3 yet.) > They take issue with "promoting" non-Free software. That includes > website links and documentation. And yes, FreeDOS is very spartan > without "legacy" (which usually means proprietary). It doesn't mean > you couldn't fork it, call it something else, and rebuild literally > everything you need from scratch. You could remove legacy support and > create some new interfaces and file formats instead, but overall it's > pointless. The main point is just to rebuild literally everything you > actively use from scratch with Free tools. (GNU does actually like > "standards" that are widely known.) Being compatible in itself can't be an absolute problem since they support "standards" like C or C++. Even informal "de facto" standards like Python or Perl are included by default (probably prerequisites for many things). Like I said, you could redesign "DOS" to use other system calls (int 40h?) or .EXE formats (ELF?) while still keeping 8086 cpu and BIOS, but it wouldn't gain you much. Being incompatible just to be incompatible is pointless. (If there was a practical reason, maybe. Otherwise, no.) > I mean, DOS is still a fun hobby, and it's not wrong to target legacy > APIs or file formats with new software. The main advantage is that > it's well-documented and widely used already. The real disadvantage is > that nobody cares enough to "clean it up". You could bundle the Doom > engine (GPL) and Freedoom data (BSD), for instance, and rebuild all of > that with Free tools (DJGPP + Allegro). Like I said, the main appeal may just be to be able to write new games entirely from scratch with Free/libre tools. Certainly there are "some" (few) DOS games and whatnot that would fit their licensing criteria. Obviously, FreeDOS knows that not everything is proprietary, nor should it be! I know this isn't announcing much. I know it's still bleak. I doubt anybody cares (besides me). Just FYI. _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
