> So you just want us to weed out the license-incompatible ones??
That is only part of what is needed.
Some packages have wrong or old license information. For example, some have
switched from GPL to BSD. Others, are listed as GPL, but are actually GPLv2.
And so on.
>> base\ctmouse
>
> Needs
Hi,
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote:
>
> FreeDOS 1.2 needs your help verifying package information. This is one of the
> main holdups for the
> next OS release. Verifying this data is correct is essential. Especially the
> the licensing information.
> GPL, GPLv2, MIT,
Hello Alain,
I mentioned several days ago, that if there anything additional anyone wanted
included to let me know.
But, it is still not to late.
However, XDEL is not on the FreeDOS Repo.
As long as I receive it. It is open source and includes the source. Is packaged
up with the proper LSM d
Hi, here is some news from Bonnie: She cannot write to the list
at the moment, but she can read it. Please contact Bonnie Dalzell
using bdalzell at qis.net if you have questions. Additional info:
Bonnie does not have a floppy drive at the moment, so she can not
check or use the floppies. It would
I made a XDEL utility, clone of DRDO's but it was happily forgotten :(
Alain
On 06-05-2016 07:52, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> FreeDOS 1.2 needs your help verifying package information. This is one of the
> main holdups for the
> next OS release. Verifying this data is correct is
Hello All,
FreeDOS 1.2 needs your help verifying package information. This is one of the
main holdups for the
next OS release. Verifying this data is correct is essential. Especially the
the licensing information.
GPL, GPLv2, MIT, BSD …… Other information, such as website, authors and etc,
s
