>>> 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.)
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:19 AM John Vella <john.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Agree! >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, 07:33 Thomas Mueller, <mueller6...@twc.com> wrote: >>> >>> Agree >>> >>> Tom >>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:34 PM Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It would likely be prudent to get a confirmation statement from Russell > Nelson as well. > Hi everyone I'm responding to this very old thread because I did reach out to Russell and he recently got back to me. I wanted to share the outcome. Yes, the AMD statements were an error. My conversation with Russell: : Hi Russ : : It's been a while since we last connected. I hope things are great! [..] : : Along the lines of DOS stuff, I had a question about the packet : drivers on your site: http://crynwr.com/drivers/ [and you all know the details, see above] Russell had a very short reply: :: Yes, AMD applied in error. Who unpblishes software, anyway?? So there's the confirmation that AMD's statements were applied in error. I'll add it to my to-do list to make an updated zip package of the Crynwr packet drivers that removes the errant AMD statements, and include a copy of my conversation with Russell as a separate Readme file. Jim _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
