DOS ain't dead

I continue to try to compete with MSDOS.

There is now a 40 MB hard disk image (only 9 MB
used) suitable to putting on the first 80386
computer (Compaq Deskpro 386). It is entirely
public domain and includes all the tools (linker
etc) required to be able to program in a subset
of C90 instead of machine code, in order to
eventually compete with MSDOS.

See "University Challenge" at http://pdos.org

> I continue to try to compete with MSDOS.
>
> There is now a 40 MB hard disk image (only 9 MB
> used) suitable to putting on the first 80386
> computer (Compaq Deskpro 386). It is entirely
> public domain and includes all the tools (linker
> etc) required to be able to program in a subset
> of C90 instead of machine code, in order to
> eventually compete with MSDOS.
>
> See "University Challenge" at http://pdos.org


there is no "University Challenge" at this address.

besides this, could you eventually indicate why PDOS would be better suited to *ANY* purpose than MSDOS?

yes, you wasted the last 23 years of your life on this 'OS'.

that's no reason to spend the next 10 years on the same futile shit.

Sorry.

> > I continue to try to compete with MSDOS.
> >
> > There is now a 40 MB hard disk image (only 9 MB
> > used) suitable to putting on the first 80386
> > computer (Compaq Deskpro 386). It is entirely
> > public domain and includes all the tools (linker
> > etc) required to be able to program in a subset
> > of C90 instead of machine code, in order to
> > eventually compete with MSDOS.
> >
> > See "University Challenge" at http://pdos.org
>
>
> there is no "University Challenge" at this address.

Maybe you need to clear your cache or something.
I just checked, it is written there in bold.

> besides this, could you eventually indicate why PDOS would be better suited
> to *ANY* purpose than MSDOS?

It is public domain so you can commercialize it
without restriction.

> yes, you wasted the last 23 years of your life on this 'OS'.

Why did you say 'OS'? Does it not meet your definition
of an OS? If so, what definition are you using?

> that's no reason to spend the next 10 years on the same futile shit.

I haven't decided what I should do for the next 10
years. University Challenge is a definitive point.
I really need to discuss theory now. Yes, I got
something to work, but I said in the documentation
right from the start that I wasn't an OS expert.
Because of that, I just used MSDOS as a guide, but
made everything 32-bit instead.

BFN. Paul.

> > > I continue to try to compete with MSDOS.
> > >
> > > There is now a 40 MB hard disk image (only 9 MB
> > > used) suitable to putting on the first 80386
> > > computer (Compaq Deskpro 386). It is entirely
> > > public domain and includes all the tools (linker
> > > etc) required to be able to program in a subset
> > > of C90 instead of machine code, in order to
> > > eventually compete with MSDOS.
> > >
> > > See "University Challenge" at http://pdos.org
> >
> >
> > there is no "University Challenge" at this address.
>
> Maybe you need to clear your cache or something.
> I just checked, it is written there in bold.
>

Yep... about 1/2 way down the page...

" University Challenge

It is September 1986 and the Compaq Deskpro 386 has been released.
This time the 40 MB drive has a PDOS/386 distribution installed on it.
It contains pure public domain code. Due to the limits of what has been
released to the public domain, only SubC is available, which gives you a
subset of C90. But it's better than having to write in machine code.
Your challenge is to produce a 32-bit competitor to MSDOS using just what
is on this disk. Theoretically everything you need is on this disk.
Get the 40 MB disk image here."

"Here" == http://www.pdos.org/univchal.zip
( 2.4MB ZIP containing univchal.vhd 40MB disk image )

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

Hello glennmcc, hell kerravon,

> " University Challenge
> It is September 1986 and the Compaq Deskpro 386 has been released.
> This time the 40 MB drive has a PDOS/386 distribution installed on it.
> It contains pure public domain code. Due to the limits of what has been

Hmm... ?!?! This "challenge" still does not make much sense to me. What exactly will be the payoff for this challenge — and will I need to travel back in time to 1986 to collect the payoff?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> Hello glennmcc, hell kerravon,
>
> > " University Challenge
> > It is September 1986 and the Compaq Deskpro 386 has been released.
> > This time the 40 MB drive has a PDOS/386 distribution installed on it.
> > It contains pure public domain code. Due to the limits of what has been
>
> Hmm... ?!?! This "challenge" still does not make much sense to me. What
> exactly will be the payoff for this challenge — and will I need to
> travel back in time to 1986 to collect the payoff?

Some people do crosswords to "keep the gray matter
ticking". There is no actual payoff besides that.
Personally I'd rather see people improving SubC
to "keep the gray matter ticking", and now they have
a distribution that allows them to do exactly that.
Even if the hard disk on their computer breaks.

It is unclear whether there is some commercialization
possibilities available now that a public domain base
is available. You never know what the free market is
going to produce next. It's fascinating.

It is also unclear whether this is useful as a
teaching aid.

Also I think it is important to preserve the
techniques used to get here in the first place,
particularly the use of a "monitor" rather than
a modern debugger.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> Personally I'd rather see people improving SubC
> to "keep the gray matter ticking", and now they have
> a distribution that allows them to do exactly that.
> Even if the hard disk on their computer breaks.

I have lately been adding improvements to the Amsterdam Compiler Kit, which is small, and portable, and C90-compliant to boot.

It may not be "public domain", but that is not a problem to me. And I see no reason why that "should" be a problem.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> It may not be "public domain", but that is not a problem to me. And I see
> no reason why that "should" be a problem.

You may not see a reason, but I do. Maybe not a
problem for you, but a problem for people who
think like me.

Until someone is willing to sign on the dotted
line that a work is being put into the public
domain, the job hasn't been done yet.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> You may not see a reason, but I do. Maybe not a
> problem for you, but a problem for people who
> think like me.

Then are you able to explain how putting code in the public domain somehow magically makes it more able to "compete with Microsoft"? Or is it just an artificial requirement you are imposing on yourself?

No software house I can think of — not Google, not Apple, not even Microsoft the Great Satan itself — has had any issue with using permissively-licensed open source code. This is not just "what I think"; this is an established fact.

The mere fact that SubC is public domain does not magically make it more "competitive" than the Amsterdam Compiler Kit.

> Until someone is willing to sign on the dotted
> line that a work is being put into the public
> domain, the job hasn't been done yet.

And why do you think it is such a Great Good, for someone to work on a piece of software for free, only to have zero say whatsoever over how some hypothetical far-away for-profit company might choose to cash in on it? I do not see how this is good at all.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> > You may not see a reason, but I do. Maybe not a
> > problem for you, but a problem for people who
> > think like me.
>
> Then are you able to explain how putting code in the public domain somehow
> magically makes it more able to "compete with Microsoft"? Or is it just an
> artificial requirement you are imposing on yourself?

You answered this question yourself.

> No software house I can think of — not Google, not Apple, not even
> Microsoft the Great Satan itself — has had any issue with using
> permissively-licensed open source code. This is not just "what I think";
> this is an established fact.

Those companies don't represent the entire software
industry now or in the future, and have large budgets
to fight, or recover from, legal challenges by an
undisputed copyright holder.

Any company I start will not touch anything except
public domain code.

Any company that thinks like me will be in the same
boat.

I have already been contacted by one such company.

> > Until someone is willing to sign on the dotted
> > line that a work is being put into the public
> > domain, the job hasn't been done yet.
>
> And why do you think it is such a great good, for someone to work on a
> piece of software for free, only to have zero say whatsoever over
> how some hypothetical far-away for-profit company might choose to cash in
> on it? I do not see how this is good at all.

Here you have answered your own question.

You don't like the idea of companies using your
code without you having any say over it. That's
not freedom of use.

I won't touch anything less.

Why I think it is a great good is explained here
in more detail:

https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/pdpgoal.txt

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> > Then are you able to explain how putting code in the public domain
> somehow
> > magically makes it more able to "compete with Microsoft"? Or is it just
> an
> > artificial requirement you are imposing on yourself?
> You answered this question yourself.

Well, I would like to hear your explanation, in your own words.

Because right now, as far as I can tell, your "reasoning" boils down to "public domain is good and makes code more competitive, because I have very strong emotions".

> Here you have answered your own question.
> You don't like the idea of companies using your
> code without you having any say over it. That's
> not freedom of use.

We have seen what happens when for-profit companies rely on code written by volunteers without paying back anything in kind. No, the outcome of all this is not "freedom". The outcome is exploitation of developers, and poorly-maintained software that has security vulnerabilities:

> > It is ridiculous when you think about all of the business capital that
> > depends on such grossly underfunded applications. OpenSSL has never
> > received more than a million dollar yearly budget and OpenSSH can’t pay
> > its electric bill. The OpenSSL foundation’s president, Steve Marquess,
> > said “The mystery is not that a few overworked volunteers missed this
> > [Heartbleed security] bug; the mystery is why it hasn't happened more
> > often."
> >
> > Marquess has noted an increase in donations and support for OpenSSL. Even
> > with this increase in donations OpenSSL is still underfunded. Marquess
> > says, the OpenSSL developers are not to blame for this security
> > vulnerability; they did what they could with the resources they had. The
> > true culprits are those who take from the open source community without
> > giving enough back.

(And all this even though OpenSSL is not public domain. The exact same problem would be exacerbated if OpenSSL were public domain.)

All this is established, well-known history. So again, why would it be a Great Good for a hypothetical for-profit company to simply cash in on someone else's work?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> Any company I start will not touch anything except
> public domain code.
>
> Any company that thinks like me will be in the same
> boat.
>
> I have already been contacted by one such company.
>
> I won't touch anything less.
>

Hmmmm...

I guess you would never touch something as simple as this PHP code
'cus it's not public domain but rather GPL v2 ?

http://glennmcc.dynu.com/aqccc_home/php-src.txt

And the same goes for this C SRC code ?

http://glennmcc.org/arachne/asrc199.zip

Maybe _that_ is why no-one else has picked-up development of DOS Arachne.

Is everyone with any interest in it waiting for it to be placed into the public domain ?

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> > > Then are you able to explain how putting code in the public domain
> > somehow
> > > magically makes it more able to "compete with Microsoft"? Or is it
> just
> > an
> > > artificial requirement you are imposing on yourself?
> > You answered this question yourself.
>
> Well, I would like to hear your explanation, in your own words.
>
> Because right now, as far as I can tell, your "reasoning" boils down to
> "public domain is good and makes code more competitive, because I have very
> strong emotions".

I didn't use the phrase "more competitive". Why
don't you quote something I actually said? I'm
not sure what that actually means.

Perhaps a better approach would be for you to tell
me what a "hypothetical" company could do if someone
released their code as public domain instead of
copyrighted under some virus license.

Whatever that company could do is what I want to
see happen.

> > Here you have answered your own question.
> > You don't like the idea of companies using your
> > code without you having any say over it. That's
> > not freedom of use.
>
> We have seen
> what
> happens when for-profit companies rely on code written by volunteers
> without paying back anything in kind.

That is a problem with copyrighted freeware. What
I am interested in is a company picking up some
public domain code as a BASE, something that "mostly
works", and then taking ownership of it, making sure
it passes their own stringent tests (the sort of
effort you are alluding to with "paying back"), and
then commercially protecting that by making it closed
source, and stamping their own reputation on it.

> No, the outcome of all this is not
> "freedom". The outcome is exploitation of developers, and
> poorly-maintained software that has security vulnerabilities:

Copyrighted code is not "freedom" any more than
slaves under a communist dictator were "free" as
their dictators insisted.

And it is not "exploitation" if someone chooses to
donate their free time to write code. No-one forced
them to do that. If they consider that to be
exploitation they should go to the beach instead.

BTW, I assume I am one of those people being "exploited"
because I wrote public domain code?

> (And all this even though OpenSSL is not public domain. The exact same
> problem would be exacerbated if OpenSSL were public domain.)

No, the problem would not be exacerbated.

> All this is established, well-known history. So again, why would it be a
> Great Good for a hypothetical for-profit company to simply cash in on
> someone else's work?

They are technically only cashing in on whatever
value they have added.

And as per the link I gave you, if you think there
is enormous profits to be made by "cashing in" on my
public domain code - go right ahead and make billions
of dollars profit. You can then choose to build a
luxury yacht, or start a charity, or give me some of
it. It is entirely your choice and good luck with
whatever you choose.

BFN. Paul.

> And the same goes for this C SRC code ?
>
> http://glennmcc.org/arachne/asrc199.zip
>
> Maybe _that_ is why no-one else has picked-up development of DOS Arachne.
>
> Is everyone with any interest in it waiting for it to be placed into the
> public domain ?

"everyone" doesn't speak with one voice. I assume
there are people out there who won't touch code
unless it has a particular virus license on it.

I can only speak for myself that I won't touch it
unless it has a public domain notice on it, with
no caveats.

PDOS/386 is a new OS so needs new software. I am
interested in public domain C90 code that could
make PDOS/386 a better product. Obviously others
are free to port virus-licensed products to
PDOS/386 independently of me.

My focus at the moment is a particular bit of public
domain software - SubC.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> I didn't use the phrase "more competitive". Why
> don't you quote something I actually said? I'm
> not sure what that actually means.

Well, here is what I mean: you are claiming that a BSD License or an MIT License will somehow prevent a piece of code from becoming the nucleus of a "Microsoft competitor", but if the code were public domain, then suddenly good things will magically happen and the code will magically become a "Microsoft competitor".

Did I get you right?

> > We have seen
> >
> what
> > happens when for-profit companies rely on code written by
> volunteers
> > without paying back anything in kind.
>
> That is a problem with copyrighted freeware. What
> I am interested in is a company picking up some
> public domain code as a BASE, something that "mostly
> works", and then taking ownership of it, making sure
> it passes their own stringent tests (the sort of
> effort you are alluding to with "paying back"), and
> then commercially protecting that by making it closed
> source, and stamping their own reputation on it.

And what makes you so sure they would they do that?

No company decided to "take ownership" of the OpenSSL code. This, even though any one company could easily do so.

Why do you expect that, if OpenSSL were public domain, then some company would magically decide to maintain it properly, rather than leaving the project in its under-funded state?

You are just engaging in hand-waving and wishful thinking here.

> "everyone" doesn't speak with one voice.

You do not realize that this works both ways? Perhaps you should stop being enamoured with your own voice?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

Hello kerravon,

Also, you seem to think the MIT License and the BSD Licenses are like "communism" — but a piece of code placed under a proprietary license is a sign of "reputation" and therefore Good™ and very "freedom".

Did I get you correct?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> > I didn't use the phrase "more competitive". Why
> > don't you quote something I actually said? I'm
> > not sure what that actually means.
>
> Well, here is what I mean: you are claiming that a BSD License or an MIT
> License will somehow prevent a piece of code from becoming the nucleus of a
> "Microsoft competitor",

I didn't say that either. I have no idea what
companies will pick up BSD license code and take
the risk that they will be sued by the undisputed
copyright holder.

I'm just saying that any company that I start won't,
and that's my target audience - people who want
genuinely free code, not Stallman's definition of
"free" that is as free as communist dictatorships
were.

> but if the code were public domain, then suddenly
> good things will magically happen and the code will magically become a
> "Microsoft competitor".

I didn't say that either. I have no idea what the
free market will do. It's beyond my control.

I can speak hypothetically about what *I* might do
if I started a company.

> > That is a problem with copyrighted freeware. What
> > I am interested in is a company picking up some
> > public domain code as a BASE, something that "mostly
> > works", and then taking ownership of it, making sure
> > it passes their own stringent tests (the sort of
> > effort you are alluding to with "paying back"), and
> > then commercially protecting that by making it closed
> > source, and stamping their own reputation on it.
>
> And what makes you so sure they would they do that?

I didn't claim to be so sure of that. It's the free
market. I have donated free code to the free market.
What happens after that I have no idea.

> No company decided to "take ownership" of the OpenSSL code. This, even
> though any one company could easily do so.

No, they can't "easily" do that. The code is
copyrighted so anyone who wants to make a
product out of it (commercial, closed source)
risks being sued by the copyright holder, who
very very clearly never relinquished copyright.

> Why do you expect that, if OpenSSL were public domain, then some company
> would magically decide to maintain it properly, rather than leaving the
> project in its under-funded state?

I don't "expect" that. I have no idea what to
expect because we have no data for what happens
when an SSL implementation is released to the
public domain.

> You are just engaging in hand-waving and wishful thinking here.

Either that or you are engaged in putting words into
my mouth.

> > "everyone" doesn't speak with one voice.
>
> You do not realize that this works both ways? Perhaps you should stop
> being enamoured with your own voice?

Pardon? All I did was say that there were multiple
opinions out there, so you can't talk about
"everyone". I am one of those people. I don't speak
for "everyone", I'm just giving you my opinion.

Perhaps instead you should stop trying to shut down
my opinion?

> Also, you seem to think the MIT License and the BSD Licenses
> are like "communism" — but a piece of code placed under a
> proprietary license is a sign of "reputation" and therefore
> Good™ and very "freedom".

I didn't make that claim either.

I have no opinion on what proprietary license any
particular company may choose to place on their
commercial product.

I only offered an opinion on what I would do if I
were a company looking for code to use as a base.

And I didn't tell you what license my company would
put on the final product, because I haven't consulted
my company lawyers yet because I haven't started my
company yet.

> Did I get you correct?

Nope.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> I'm just saying that any company that I start won't,
> and that's my target audience - people who want
> genuinely free code, not Stallman's definition of
> "free" that is as free as communist dictatorships
> were.

Why are you so obsessed with Richard Stallman? And what exactly does he have to do with the MIT or BSD Licenses?

> > Also, you seem to think the MIT License and the BSD Licenses
> > are like "communism" — but a piece of code placed under a
> > proprietary license is a sign of "reputation" and therefore
> > Good™ and very "freedom".
> I didn't make that claim either.
> I have no opinion on what proprietary license any
> particular company may choose to place on their
> commercial product.

And yet you are somehow sure that such a proprietary license will be preferable to a "communist" MIT or BSD License? Because ... Richard Stallman?

Well — I guess you and I have completely different life philosophies. Which is interesting, I suppose.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

Hello glennmcc,

> And the same goes for this C SRC code ?
> http://glennmcc.org/arachne/asrc199.zip
> Maybe _that_ is why no-one else has picked-up development of DOS Arachne.
> Is everyone with any interest in it waiting for it to be placed into the
> public domain ?

Speaking for myself: no. For me, it is just that I am already working on a number of other things — and though I think it would be nice to pick up Arachne, I simply do not think I have enough time or energy to give it the attention it needs.

I hope your project does find a good home.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> > I'm just saying that any company that I start won't,
> > and that's my target audience - people who want
> > genuinely free code, not Stallman's definition of
> > "free" that is as free as communist dictatorships
> > were.
>
> Why are you so obsessed with Richard Stallman?

I'm no more obsessed with Stallman than I am with
communist or other dictators creating a definition
of "free" to mean "not free".

> And what exactly does he
> have to do with the MIT or BSD Licenses?

It doesn't. It's just more people being dogs
in mangers, requiring a body of work to be
redone. Or we wait about 150 years for it to
enter the public domain regardless.

> > > Also, you seem to think the MIT License and the BSD Licenses
> > > are like "communism" — but a piece of code placed under a
> > > proprietary license is a sign of "reputation" and therefore
> > > Good™ and very "freedom".

> > I didn't make that claim either.
> > I have no opinion on what proprietary license any
> > particular company may choose to place on their
> > commercial product.
>
> And yet you are somehow sure that such a proprietary license will be
> preferable to a "communist" MIT or BSD License?

No, I didn't make that claim either.

They are all copyrighted works, some object code
only, and not remotely public domain.

I understand companies putting copyright on their
code to protect their investment.

But freeware authors putting copyright on their
code to peddle some strange philosophy is a
wasted opportunity to give the public something
as free as sunlight to help anyone who could
benefit from help.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> > Why are you so obsessed with Richard Stallman?
> I'm no more obsessed with Stallman than I am with
> communist or other dictators creating a definition
> of "free" to mean "not free".

You mentioned Richard Stallman when he had no bearing on the issue at hand.

> > And what exactly does he
> > have to do with the MIT or BSD Licenses?
> It doesn't. It's just more people being dogs
> in mangers, requiring a body of work to be
> redone. Or we wait about 150 years for it to
> enter the public domain regardless.

You said it yourself: "everyone doesn't speak with one voice". Just because people have a different notion of freedom from yours, it does not make them "dogs". It just makes them (and me) different from you.

You might want to consider that perhaps other people are just different from you, and not "dogs"?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> > > Why are you so obsessed with Richard Stallman?
> > I'm no more obsessed with Stallman than I am with
> > communist or other dictators creating a definition
> > of "free" to mean "not free".
>
> You mentioned Richard Stallman when he had no bearing on the issue at
> hand.

He's one of the most prominent people deliberately
copyrighting code to prevent it from being used
without restriction.

And not because he is going to make an understandable
mo*netary gain, but because he is peddling a sick
philosophy.

As do all the other licenses.

> > > And what exactly does he
> > > have to do with the MIT or BSD Licenses?

> > It doesn't. It's just more people being dogs
> > in mangers, requiring a body of work to be
> > redone. Or we wait about 150 years for it to
> > enter the public domain regardless.
>
> You said it yourself: "everyone doesn't speak with one voice". Just
> because people have a different notion of freedom from yours, it does not
> make them "dogs". It just makes them (and me) different from you.

"dogs in mangers" is an expression that doesn't
translate into people being dogs.

Yes, you are correct. Others, such as communist
dictators have a different definition of "freedom"
to mine, and that is where the clash comes about.

Enormous effort has been expended spreading
alternative definitions of freedom such as
communism. Probably the largest benefit to the
world would be to stop man-made problems of
people peddling communism or other systems, such
as copyrighted freeware, as "freedom". It is
active harm. The opposing ideology needs to be
crushed.

Rather than just saying "oh, it's ok to peddle
communism or nazism, not everyone has the same
definition of freedom as you do".

> You might want to consider that perhaps other people are just different
> from you, and not "dogs"?

Yes, communists, rapists etc are different from
me. You seem to think I shouldn't take any action
based on that. Whereas my number one goal is to
defeat this deliberate man-made problems that don't
require m*oney to solve, they just require people to
stop making an effort to do harmful things.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> Enormous effort has been expended spreading
> alternative definitions of freedom such as
> communism. Probably the largest benefit to the
> world would be to stop man-made problems of
> people peddling communism or other systems, such
> as copyrighted freeware, as "freedom". It is
> active harm. The opposing ideology needs to be
> crushed.

OK, so you are just exercising your freedom of speech, because "everyone doesn't speak with one voice", but anyone who even so much as writes a single word in any open source software license text is guilty of heinous thought-crimes and "the opposing ideology needs to be crushed".

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> Then are you able to explain how putting code in the public domain somehow
> magically makes it more able to "compete with Microsoft"? Or is it just an
> artificial requirement you are imposing on yourself?

To be fair, Microsoft pure Dos market is not that huge anymore either.

> Rather than just saying "oh, it's ok to peddle
> communism or nazism, not everyone has the same
> definition of freedom as you do".
>
> > You might want to consider that perhaps other people are just different
> > from you, and not "dogs"?
>
> Yes, communists, rapists etc are different from
> me. You seem to think I shouldn't take any action
> based on that. Whereas my number one goal is to
> defeat this deliberate man-made problems that don't
> require m*oney to solve, they just require people to
> stop making an effort to do harmful things.

Mod hat on: It is not okay to relate people who prefer more "viral" attribution or copyleft requirements on their works to rapists and nazis and dictators. If you continue writing such things I will edit your future posts to remove such sections.

---
l

> > Enormous effort has been expended spreading
> > alternative definitions of freedom such as
> > communism. Probably the largest benefit to the
> > world would be to stop man-made problems of
> > people peddling communism or other systems, such
> > as copyrighted freeware, as "freedom". It is
> > active harm. The opposing ideology needs to be
> > crushed.
>
> OK, so you are just exercising your freedom of speech, because "everyone
> doesn't speak with one voice", but anyone who even so much as writes a
> single word in any open source software license text is guilty of heinous
> thought-crimes and "the opposing ideology needs to be crushed".

Welcome to the concept of "debate".

That's what happens in free societies when people
have differing views.

I actually try to take debate all the way back to
first principles to find out where the difference
is occurring.

I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public domain'
and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
(All of which require that the modified code must be released
along with the resulting program)

That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
modified code the be released along with its resulting program.

Therefore, any program which started as 'public domain' code would
for all intents and purposes end-up being "proprietary" and could
be sold thereby making profit from someone else's work without
being required to pay the original authors any of those profits.

Hmmmm...
sounds just about like what MicroSoft has been doing for over 40yrs.

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> > Then are you able to explain how putting code in the public domain
> somehow
> > magically makes it more able to "compete with Microsoft"? Or is it just
> an
> > artificial requirement you are imposing on yourself?
>
> To be fair, Microsoft pure Dos market is not that huge anymore either.

Actually, the "market" for anything 'pure DOS' has been pretty-much
nonexistent for many years now.

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public domain'
> and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
> (All of which require that the modified code must be released
> along with the resulting program)
>
> That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
> modified code the be released along with its resulting program.

This is wrong. One of the few effective differences between public domain dedications and permissive choices such as MIT style or 3-/2-/0-clause BSD licenses is that of attribution. It is valid to tuck away that attribution somewhere in the documentation. Only copyleft licenses require that "modified code be released along with its resulting program".

(The other difference is that public domain may not be recognised in some places. This is the reason for CC-Zero.)

---
l

> > I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public domain'
> > and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
> > (All of which require that the modified code must be released
> > along with the resulting program)
> >
> > That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
> > modified code the be released along with its resulting program.
>
> This is wrong. One of the few effective differences between public domain
> dedications and permissive choices such as MIT style or 3-/2-/0-clause BSD
> licenses is that of attribution. It is valid to tuck away that attribution
> somewhere in the documentation. Only copyleft licenses require that
> "modified code be released along with its resulting program".
>
> (The other difference is that public domain may not be recognised in some
> places. This is the reason for CC-Zero.)

Clipped from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
(same is in gpl v3)

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

___________

Included in my distribution of DOS Arachne is LICENSE.TXT
which is the full text of the GPL v2 license.\

And of-course directly under the link to download the DOS Arachne package
is located the link to download the full source code.

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> > > I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public
> domain'
> > > and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
> > > (All of which require that the modified code must be released
> > > along with the resulting program)
> > >
> > > That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
> > > modified code the be released along with its resulting program.
> >
> > This is wrong. One of the few effective differences between public
> domain
> > dedications and permissive choices such as MIT style or 3-/2-/0-clause
> BSD
> > licenses is that of attribution. It is valid to tuck away that
> attribution
> > somewhere in the documentation. Only copyleft licenses require that
> > "modified code be released along with its resulting program".
> >
> > (The other difference is that public domain may not be recognised in
> some
> > places. This is the reason for CC-Zero.)
>
> Clipped from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
> (same is in gpl v3)
>
> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
> gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
> you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
> source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
> rights.

All versions of the GNU GPL are copyleft licenses. If you read my prior post I did clearly state that (only) copyleft licenses require what you suggested. So I don't know why you are quoting this at me.

> Included in my distribution of DOS Arachne is LICENSE.TXT
> which is the full text of the GPL v2 license.\
>
> And of-course directly under the link to download the DOS Arachne package
> is located the link to download the full source code.

That's GNU GPL again.

---
l

> All versions of the GNU GPL are copyleft licenses. If you read my prior
> post I did clearly state that (only) copyleft licenses require what you
> suggested. So I don't know why you are quoting this at me.
>

Sorry...

My bad for not fully comprehending your post :(

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public domain'
> and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
> (All of which require that the modified code must be released
> along with the resulting program)
>
> That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
> modified code the be released along with its resulting program.
>
> Therefore, any program which started as 'public domain' code would
> for all intents and purposes end-up being "proprietary" and could

I don't know what you mean by "ending up proprietary".
The original public domain code remains public domain.

> be sold thereby making profit from someone else's work without
> being required to pay the original authors any of those profits.

So why don't you start a company and make the alleged
massive profits from all the public domain code out
there? Maybe you could donate some of those profits
to charity?

Anyway, by definition, the company is only making a
profit from any value they add. Otherwise people
would use the original public domain code. That value
could be simply compiling the source into an executable,
or advertising its existence.

You can do that too.

> Hmmmm...
> sounds just about like what MicroSoft has been doing for over 40yrs.

I doubt that Microsoft has been using much public
domain code to make their products. They are unlikely
to find public domain code that is tailor-made for
some product that they are creating.

It is more practical (in my opinion - but it is for
the free market to decide) to pick up an existing
public domain product (and in the OS market, that
would be PDOS/386) and make improvements to it.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> > OK, so you are just exercising your freedom of speech, because "everyone
> > doesn't speak with one voice", but anyone who even so much as writes a
> > single word in any open source software license text is guilty of
> heinous
> > thought-crimes and "the opposing ideology needs to be crushed".
> Welcome to the concept of "debate".

It is not "debate" to compare people to rapists.

> I actually try to take debate all the way back to
> first principles to find out where the difference
> is occurring.

What are these "first principles" you talk about? Richard Stallman bad, because communism?

I get it, you have very strong feelings regarding Stallman and communism. But emotions are not principles. This cannot be emphasized enough.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

Hello kerravon,

> So why don't you start a company and make the alleged
> massive profits from all the public domain code out
> there? Maybe you could donate some of those profits
> to charity?

Exactly — why don't you start a company? If you know why you are not willing to start a company, even given your current financial state, then perhaps you will understand.

It seems your claims boil down to something like the following:

(#1) we should make it super-easy for a hypothetical new start-up to take existing code and commercialize it, because

(#2) if we were to start such a company, then we would want to enjoy such a benefit, and because

(#3) any hypothetical start-up is going to be small and powerless, and therefore need all the convenience they can get, unlike the current behemoths like Microsoft and Google which are powerful and kind of evil.

Sorry, but no. This whole line of "reasoning" is wrong on several levels.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> It is not "debate" to compare people to rapists.

I didn't actually do that. That was just to
counter the suggestion that we should all be
happy with everyone having their own personal
opinions, even those opinions appear to be
wrong, because hey, freedom.

I prefer debate.

>> I actually try to take debate all the way back to
>> first principles to find out where the difference
>> is occurring.

> What are these "first principles" you talk about?

Normally I don't know what they are. I have to keep
debating to find out what they are.

> Richard Stallman bad, because communism?

No, there is no direct relation to communism.

It seems that he, and apparently people in this
thread, have a belief that the world is filled
with "greedy corps" "exploiting" people (which
would apparently include me).

Whereas I believe our secular capitalist liberal
democracies and seek to lower their input costs.

Work with the system, instead of trying to
overthrow it.

I'm not claiming you personally are trying to
overthrow the system. I don't actually know.
It requires more debate to find out what is
driving you.

> I get it, you have very strong feelings regarding
> Stallman and communism. But emotions are not
> principles. This cannot be emphasized enough.

I don't remember making such a claim, and I've
previously been told that I am emotionless, so
I'm not sure that claim is correct either.

> > So why don't you start a company and make the alleged
> > massive profits from all the public domain code out
> > there? Maybe you could donate some of those profits
> > to charity?
>
> Exactly — why don't you start a company?

I don't have an interest in adding that value to
society. I prefer to instead just lower the input
costs to society.

If the people in this thread aren't willing to make
the sacrifices required to start a company and add
that value to society, then don't complain about
others doing so, and using the cheap input costs of
public domain code. That is in fact exactly what
they should be doing.

> If you know why
> you are not willing to start a company, even given your current
> financial state, then perhaps you will understand.

What I understand is people complaining about
companies in capitalist societies when those
companies provide employment and make progress.

> It seems your claims boil down to something like the following:
>
> (#1) we should make it super-easy for a hypothetical new start-up to take
> existing code and commercialize it, because

This is correct.

> (#2) if we were to start such a company, then we would want
> to enjoy such a benefit, and because

I don't understand this claim, but it doesn't sound
like something I said.

> (#3) any hypothetical start-up is going to be small and powerless, and

I didn't make this claim.

> therefore need all the convenience they can get,

Every company and every individual needs every
convenience they can get, so I agree with that.

> unlike the current
> behemoths like Microsoft and Google which are powerful and kind of evil.

No, I didn't call those companies evil. They are
obeying the law, which is all I expect of them.

> Sorry, but no. This whole line of "reasoning" is wrong on several levels.

Your red herring is wrong on exactly one level - it's
a logical fallacy.

BFN. Paul.

Hello glennmcc,

> Therefore, any program which started as 'public domain' code would
> for all intents and purposes end-up being "proprietary" and could
> be sold thereby making profit from someone else's work without
> being required to pay the original authors any of those profits.

As ecm points out, the MIT and BSD Licenses also allow one to incorporate source code into a proprietary product, though the licenses say that you just give proper credit to the source code authors.

And also ... ... ... ...

One thing I have learnt recently is that the copyright owner — the names that appear after the © symbol — can be just as important as the terms of the software license. Basically, for a piece of code, only the code's copyright owners have legal standing to sue other people for license infringement. The names after the © will also say who have the rights to e.g. re-release future versions of the code under a different license.

This is all very messy, but then the world is messy.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

Hello kerravon,

> If the people in this thread aren't willing to make
> the sacrifices required to start a company and add
> that value to society, then don't complain about
> others doing so, and using the cheap input costs of
> public domain code. That is in fact exactly what
> they should be doing.

Why is it so important to you that someone "start a company", or contribute to someone starting a company, in order to be considered as adding "value to society"? Was Harriet Tubman, for example, any less a contributor to society, because she was not incorporated in Delaware?

> What I understand is people complaining about
> companies in capitalist societies when those
> companies provide employment and make progress.

Sorry to break it, but "we" can jolly well "make progress" in our own ways. We can jolly well write code, and release code, on our own terms.

I am quite sure my libi86 code is already quite usable, and quite useful, as it is now. I do not need to hold out hope for some Hypothetical Start-up Inc. to adopt the project or whatnot. Because why would I need to?

This is something you just need to wrap your head around.

> It seems that he, and apparently people in this
> thread, have a belief that the world is filled
> with "greedy corps" "exploiting" people (which
> would apparently include me).

Well, what do you call a rich person who expects other people to simply hand over their work which they had done for free? Someone who can "make the sacrifices" of registering a business corporation, but does not want to pay for something that has value?

I reject the idea that my worth only exists in relation to some Hypothetical Start-up Inc. Actually, no; I have an inherent right to exist; while Hypothetical Start-up Inc. is not a natural person and has no inherent right to exist.

> Work with the system, instead of trying to
> overthrow it.

Think of it as working alongside, in parallel to the system.

> > (#2) if we were to start such a company, then we would
> want
> > to enjoy such a benefit, and because
> I don't understand this claim, but it doesn't sound
> like something I said.

Well, it does, to me.

> > unlike the current
> > behemoths like Microsoft and Google which are powerful and kind of evil.
> No, I didn't call those companies evil. They are
> obeying the law, which is all I expect of them.

Then why would you want to compete with Microsoft? Obviously there has to be something you do not like about them. You might want to figure out what that "something" is...

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > If the people in this thread aren't willing to make
> > the sacrifices required to start a company and add
> > that value to society, then don't complain about
> > others doing so, and using the cheap input costs of
> > public domain code. That is in fact exactly what
> > they should be doing.
>
> Why is it so important to you that someone "start a company", or contribute
> to someone starting a company, in order to be considered as adding "value
> to society"?

I didn't make such a claim.

Why don't you start arguing with something I
actually said rather than continually creating
red herrings?

> Was Harriet Tubman, for example, any less a contributor to
> society, because she was not incorporated in Delaware?

No idea who that was, so I have no opinion.

> > What I understand is people complaining about
> > companies in capitalist societies when those
> > companies provide employment and make progress.
>
> Sorry to break it, but "we" can jolly well "make progress" in our own ways.
> We can jolly well write code, and release code, on our own terms.

It may or may not be making progress, but it isn't
allowing companies to use code without restriction,
thus allowing them to make progress.

If you don't care about that, or actually dislike
the idea of that happening, then so be it.

There are people who don't care about all sorts of
things, but I don't want to list examples because
apparently that is off-topic.

> I am quite sure my libi86
> code is already quite usable, and quite useful, as it is now. I do not
> need to hold out hope for some Hypothetical Start-up Inc. to adopt the
> project or whatnot. Because why would I need to?

I didn't claim you needed to do that.

> This is something you just need to wrap your head around.

No. You need to stop creating red herrings.

> > It seems that he, and apparently people in this
> > thread, have a belief that the world is filled
> > with "greedy corps" "exploiting" people (which
> > would apparently include me).
>
> Well, what do you call a rich person who expects other people to simply
> hand over their work which they had done for free?

Another red herring. I don't know of any rich
person who expects such a thing to happen.

If someone like me comes along and does it of
their own free will, then sure, the rich person
can make use of that. That's not exploitation.

> Someone who can "make
> the sacrifices" of registering a business corporation, but does not want to
> pay for something that has value?

No-one made such a claim. Yet another red herring.

> I reject the idea that my worth only exists in relation to some
> Hypothetical Start-up Inc.

Another red herring. I made no such claim.

> Actually, no; I have an inherent right to
> exist; while Hypothetical Start-up Inc. is not a natural person and has no
> inherent right to exist.

I didn't make any claims about this.

> > Work with the system, instead of trying to
> > overthrow it.
>
> Think of it as working alongside, in parallel to the system.

Fine. So the companies need to develop their
own software from scratch (and pass the costs
on to the consumer) because you want to exist
in parrallel to them instead of cooperating
with them, because (insert reason here).

> > > (#2) if we were to start such a company, then we would
> > want
> > > to enjoy such a benefit, and because
> > I don't understand this claim, but it doesn't sound
> > like something I said.
>
> Well, it does, to me.

I doubt it is something I said. Why don't you
quote my actual words so that I understand them?

> > > unlike the current
> > > behemoths like Microsoft and Google which are powerful and kind of
> evil.
> > No, I didn't call those companies evil. They are
> > obeying the law, which is all I expect of them.
>
> Then why would you want to compete with Microsoft? Obviously there has to
> be something you do not like about them. You might want to figure out what
> that "something" is...

No need to "figure it out". I already know.
Microsoft is a monopoly. Not really through
any fault of their own. It's just a natural
phenomenon, and often the government will step
in and break up the company because they know
it is not good for competition.

For whatever reason the government hasn't been
willing to do that, so I have taken matters into
my own hands to do my best to provide a BASE of
software that can be used to compete with
Microsoft without restriction.

Rather than create a "parallel" system that is
dependent on jackasses on the internet (and I'm
not claiming to not be one of those) instead of
a commercial enterprise trying to build a
reputation.

BFN. Paul.

Hello kerravon,

> > Sorry to break it, but "we" can jolly well "make progress" in our own
> ways.
> > We can jolly well write code, and release code, on our own terms.
> It may or may not be making progress, but it isn't
> allowing companies to use code without restriction,
> thus allowing them to make progress.

I don't care about what companies want. Why should I? They are not me, and I am not them.

If Hypothetical Start-Up Inc. wants something from me, they can ask nicely. Or they can get lost. It is that simple.

Companies exist to serve people, not the other way around.

> > Think of it as working alongside, in parallel to the
> system.
> Fine. So the companies need to develop their
> own software from scratch (and pass the costs
> on to the consumer) because you want to exist
> in parrallel to them instead of cooperating
> with them, because (insert reason here).

Well, yes. Or, your Hypothetical Start-Up Inc. can negotiate a separate software license with the original copyright owners — which, surprise surprise, it is very much in their power to do. Then everyone wins.

Sorry, but I do not see any sort of moral obligation to hand over the rights of my code to Hypothetical Start-Up Inc., just because I am releasing the source code. Corporations do not have inherent rights to anything. Again, corporations do not even have the inherent right to exist, unlike people. Companies exist only to serve natural persons.

This is what I think. Now prove me wrong.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

Hello kerravon,

> No need to "figure it out". I already know.
> Microsoft is a monopoly. Not really through
> any fault of their own. It's just a natural
> phenomenon, and often the government will step
> in and break up the company because they know
> it is not good for competition.
>
> [...] I have taken matters into
> my own hands to do my best to provide a BASE of
> software that can be used to compete with
> Microsoft without restriction.

Well, yes, apparently it has been ruled by a judge that Microsoft is a "monopoly" in a certain sense (https://www.cnet.com/culture/judge-calls-microsoft-a-monopoly/).

But that is not because Microsoft lacks competitors. Being a "monopoly" in this context merely means that the competing offerings to Microsoft's products — and there are many! — are not powerful enough to challenge Microsoft's dominant position.

> > [Judge] Jackson further concluded that Microsoft made it difficult for PC
> > manufacturers to offer Netscape Communications' rival Navigator browser
> > preinstalled on PCs as they left the factory.
> >
> > "Many of the tactics Microsoft employed have also harmed consumers
> > indirectly by unjustifiably distorting competition," Jackson found.
> > Consumers were prevented from having more choices and innovation, he
> > concluded.
> >
> > "The campaign against Navigator has retarded widespread acceptance of
> > Sun's Java implementation," Jackson wrote.

So, even if your diagnosis of the problem is correct, your solution is not.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"

> > > Sorry to break it, but "we" can jolly well "make progress" in our own
> > ways.
> > > We can jolly well write code, and release code, on our own terms.
> > It may or may not be making progress, but it isn't
> > allowing companies to use code without restriction,
> > thus allowing them to make progress.
>
> I don't care about what companies want. Why should I? They are not me,
> and I am not them.

I didn't say you "should". If you lower the costs
to business, that will normally lower the costs
charged to the consumer. But if you don't care
about 7 billion people on the planet, I'm not
really saying you should.

> If Hypothetical Start-Up Inc. wants something from me, they can ask nicely.
> Or they can get lost. It is that simple.

That's fine. That's making a trade on the free
market.

> Companies exist to serve people, not the other way around.

Companies exist to make a profit, not "serve"
anyone.

> > > Think of it as working alongside, in parallel to the
> > system.
> > Fine. So the companies need to develop their
> > own software from scratch (and pass the costs
> > on to the consumer) because you want to exist
> > in parrallel to them instead of cooperating
> > with them, because (insert reason here).
>
> Well, yes. Or, your Hypothetical Start-Up Inc. can negotiate
> a separate software license with the original copyright owners — which,
> surprise surprise, it is very much in their power to do. Then everyone
> wins.

That's fine. It's your work, you can do what
you want with it. All I'm saying is that a
body of work doesn't become truly free until
there is a public domain version of it. I'm
not expecting you to make your own hard work
public domain. But just don't be surprised
when someone like me chooses to make their
freeware public domain so that it is truly
free and gives 7 billion people access to
the technology.

> Sorry, but I do not see any sort of moral obligation to hand over
> the rights of my code to Hypothetical Start-Up Inc.,

You don't have a moral obligation to do so.

> just because I am
> releasing the source code. Corporations do not have inherent rights to
> anything.

True.

> Again, corporations do not even have the inherent right
> to exist, unlike people. Companies exist only to serve natural persons.

I don't agree with this, but it's probably not
helpful to debate it.

> This is what I think. Now prove me wrong.

Most of what you said is not wrong.

BFN. Paul.

> But that is not because Microsoft lacks competitors. Being a
> "monopoly" in this context merely means that the competing offerings to
> Microsoft's products — and there are many! — are not powerful
> enough to challenge Microsoft's dominant position.

What I'm looking for as a competitor to Microsoft
is a company, be it IBM or Fujitsu or anyone else,
to produce a closed source (they almost certainly
need this) clone of Windows.

The way I see this being achieved is for the open
source community to develop a public domain clone
of Windows (which PDOS/386 is an example of -
possibly the only example of), and get it to the
point where it is good enough for one of those
companies to pick up, make it commercial quality,
and then sell it.

> So, even if your diagnosis of the problem is correct, your solution is
> not.

You have not proven my solution is not correct.
Not surprising since I didn't even articulate
part of it until the above, because you didn't
even bother to ask until now.

BFN. Paul.

> > But that is not because Microsoft lacks competitors. Being a
> > "monopoly" in this context merely means that the competing offerings to
> > Microsoft's products — and there are many! — are not powerful
> > enough to challenge Microsoft's dominant position.
>
> What I'm looking for as a competitor to Microsoft
> is a company, be it IBM or Fujitsu or anyone else,
> to produce a closed source (they almost certainly
> need this) clone of Windows.

you started this thread with
"Your challenge is to produce a 32-bit competitor to MSDOS "

now you step up the competition and go after Windows. Wow.

I am fairly certain that - should such a company ever exist - it will certainly not start from a more or less buggy '32 Bit clone' of MSDOS and put all the required multitasking stuff on top.

The software industry simply doesn't work this way.

> > > But that is not because Microsoft lacks competitors. Being a
> > > "monopoly" in this context merely means that the competing offerings
> to
> > > Microsoft's products — and there are many! — are not powerful
> > > enough to challenge Microsoft's dominant position.
> >
> > What I'm looking for as a competitor to Microsoft
> > is a company, be it IBM or Fujitsu or anyone else,
> > to produce a closed source (they almost certainly
> > need this) clone of Windows.
>
> you started this thread with
> "Your challenge is to produce a 32-bit competitor to MSDOS "
>
> now you step up the competition and go after Windows. Wow.

PDOS/386 is both a 32-bit version of MSDOS (where
there was nothing to clone) and a mini clone of
Windows. I failed to mention that at the beginning
of the thread because I've mentioned it in previous
threads. Plus the fact that I have a new design for
PDOS called PDOS-generic which is not going to be a
clone of Windows because I have a different design
in mind. It will continue to be close to MSDOS though.

> I am fairly certain that - should such a company ever exist - it will
> certainly not start from a more or less buggy '32 Bit clone' of MSDOS and
> put all the required multitasking stuff on top.
>
> The software industry simply doesn't work this way.

The software industry has very little public domain
code to use as a base, so it's not surprising that
they currently don't work that way.

What the free market does in the future I have no
idea.

The "company" may be an individual just using
PDOS/386 for some sort of industrial use. I really
have no idea.

All I'm doing is putting unrestricted public domain
code out there and then seeing what the hell happens.

If nothing happens, so be it.

BFN. Paul.

>
> Sorry to break it, but "we" can jolly well "make progress" in our own ways.
> We can jolly well write code, and release code, on our own terms.
>
> I am quite sure my libi86
> code is already quite usable, and quite useful, as it is now. I do not
> need to hold out hope for some Hypothetical Start-up Inc. to adopt the
> project or whatnot. Because why would I need to?
>
> This is something you just need to wrap your head around.
>

Agreed.

DOS Arachne was is quite usable and quite useful to this day
even though it was 'closed source' from 1996 to 2003, has
now been GPL v2 since 2003 and has continued to make progress
becoming more usable and use useful through the years.

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> I see one major difference between code placed into the 'public domain'
> and code that's under GPL, MIT, BSD and other various licenses.
> (All of which require that the modified code must be released
> along with the resulting program)
>
> That difference being that 'public domain' does _not_ require
> modified code the be released along with its resulting program.

No. Neither does e.g. BSD or MIT. That is a (L)GPL feature. (see bottom paragraph url)

But I was told the big problem with PD is that copyright in many countries is inalienable without exceptions, and the only way works come into the PD is by expiration of the copyright.

Therefore the license's legal phrase "putting it in the PD" has no legal standing (is an indication of intent only, without legal meaning) in many judicial systems, most notably mainland Europe.

BSD is nearly equivalent and as a main extra clause retains the right to be seen as the author of the work, exactly as the law requires.

> Therefore, any program which started as 'public domain' code would
> for all intents and purposes end-up being "proprietary" and could
> be sold thereby making profit from someone else's work without
> being required to pay the original authors any of those profits.

Such reasoning, as propagated by the FSF is a coloured and highly hypothetical reasoning.

It is not based on any research that I know of, and somewhat unlikely. Do you really think that companies are going to open source their big projects just because you made some little component that they might use (L)GPL?

No, they'll generally either put something BSD licensed beside it (e.g. LLVM vs Gnu GCC), or work around it using the exceptions in the GPL. (see e.g. Tivoisation, or simply keeping the relevant IP in separate binaries rather than libraries)

For an idea see a discussion starter I once made for a unix usergroup: http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/bsdvslgpl.txt

> It is September 1986 and the Compaq Deskpro 386 has been released.
> This time the 40 MB drive has a PDOS/386 distribution installed on it.
> It contains pure public domain code. Due to the limits of what has been
> released to the public domain, only SubC is available, which gives you a
> subset of C90. But it's better than having to write in machine code.
> Your challenge is to produce a 32-bit competitor to MSDOS using just what
> is on this disk. Theoretically everything you need is on this disk.
> Get the 40 MB disk image here."

SubC seems to be maintained again, but DOS support is broken. The latest DOS binaries date from 2014. It lacks some things (no strstr(), no sprintf(tmp,"%*.s",line), no goto, no parameterized macros) but otherwise compiles one very simple program of mine. It's very impressive, but SmallerC (BSD, 386+) is much more complete.

I have re-posted this on my own message board quite a few times
through the years when a 'discussion' had gone on for well-over
a week with several posters trying to no avail to change the others
opinion on the subject in-question.

I do believe that it applies to _this_ 'discussion'.
________________________________________________________________________


2006) Wed, Dec 19, 2012 - 10:32:45 am (EST) (GMT-0500)
glennmcc>
There is one simple fact that I feel can't be denied.

No matter what any of us have to say about _anything_ ...
NOTHING will ever change as a result of us talking about it here on this board.

2007) Wed, Dec 19, 2012 - 10:41:42 am (EST) (GMT-0500)
glennmcc>
Further.....

With such strong issues as these.....
The opinions that each of us have are solidly and permanently set
'for life' and none of us will ever be able to change the others opinion.

_____________________________________________________________________________

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> I have re-posted this on my own message board quite a few times
> through the years when a 'discussion' had gone on for well-over
> a week with several posters trying to no avail to change the others
> opinion on the subject in-question.
>
> I do believe that it applies to _this_ 'discussion'.
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 2006) Wed, Dec 19, 2012 - 10:32:45 am (EST) (GMT-0500)
> glennmcc>
> There is one simple fact that I feel can't be denied.
>
> No matter what any of us have to say about _anything_ ...
> NOTHING will ever change as a result of us talking about it here on this
> board.
>
> 2007) Wed, Dec 19, 2012 - 10:41:42 am (EST) (GMT-0500)
> glennmcc>
> Further.....
>
> With such strong issues as these.....
> The opinions that each of us have are solidly and permanently set
> 'for life' and none of us will ever be able to change the others opinion.
>
>

Amen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen

_____________________________________________________________________________

> But I was told the big problem with PD is that copyright in many countries
> is inalienable without exceptions, and the only way works come into the PD
> is by expiration of the copyright.
>
> Therefore the license's legal phrase "putting it in the PD" has no legal
> standing (is an indication of intent only, without legal meaning) in many
> judicial systems, most notably mainland Europe.

1. It is harmless to put "released to the public
domain" even if some judge insists it has no
meaning in some jurisdiction.

2. It is harmless to NOT write the word "copyright"
which leaves no doubt as to the status, even if
there is an implied copyright you can't get rid of.

3. You can use CC0 as a fallback license for
jurisdictions where it is impossible to get rid of
copyright. It makes no attempt to claim copyright
and every attempt to get rid of it.

BFN. Paul.