from Jim Hall:
> I don't know why the sources later had an "AMD" statement put on them, > but you cannot claim "proprietary" or "copyright" on something that > was previously released under the GNU General Public License. > It appears that somewhere along the line, someone (at AMD?) had access > to the sources, probably in a larger source tree, and ran a batch job > or script to apply the "AMD" statement to a bunch of source files. And > that happened to catch these GPL and public domain source files. I > believe that was done in error. The original public domain and GPL > declarations trump the latter "AMD" statement. > Resolution: > (1) Let's re-accept the FDNET package into the next FreeDOS distribution. > (2) I'll make a note about this decision in the FreeDOS wiki at > http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages > (this currently has a red "do not include" note on it .. I'll update > to change it a green "include" message) > (3) To prevent future confusion, I'll create a new version of these > source files that *removes* the "AMD" statement, where a previous GPL > or public domain declaration was already made. (I think that's all of > the files in question.) I'll also create (or update, if it exists) a > README file to note the changes to the source files, and why. > I look forward to including networking support again in the next > distribution, which should be FreeDOS 1.3 RC5. > *If you agree or disagree, I'd appreciate your reply to this email. > Agreement can be simply "agree" or "+1". If you disagree, please > discuss. (But consensus from the last discussion favored including > FDNET, so if no one disagrees now, I'll assume no concerns on this.) Agree Tom _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
