FREEDOS UDMA DRIVER DOWNLOAD

Jim, at risk of sounding very naive or very stubborn , there's absolutely no reason to worry about things like this without some kind of official court judgement directly applied to us. He presumably implemented compatible file system support for minixfs before ext or ext2 were developed. I cannot speak for Linux, as I have never used it. If they didn't want you to read it, only compile it, then they could shroud it as many have done before. You only own what you wrote, not everyone else's. Ralf This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

Uploader:	Tojajin
Date Added:	24 November 2004
File Size:	10.42 Mb
Operating Systems:	Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads:	96217
Price:	Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

The charge was only for the book that the source code was published in, with a small fee for the media floppy disks if you wanted to have it in digital form.

I certainly frefdos care, it's way too old. On Wed, Jan 13, at 3: I remember that because I bought those but never bought the book. The right thing to do is avoid proprietary source code in developing FreeDOS. I know this seems unfair to some, but we must protect FreeDOS from any accusation that we benefit from proprietary source code. Unless someone can officially prove infringement, then it's not worth destroying anything just on an unofficial whim.

You only own what you wrote, not everyone else's.

FreeDOS released after 17 years - ExtremeTech

freeeos I can certainly understand the paranoia from a totally volunteer organization like FreeOOS, but there needs to be feeedos reasonable perspective applied to this at some point in time.

There just has to be a better explanation for this madness. You are allowed to write your own, even if you have studied someone else's. No, you usually can't "copy" verbatim large chunks of code since everything is locked down, copyrighted, by defaultbut you can still try to understand the gist of it.

Index of /pub/misc/freedos/files/dos/udma/

Sadly, this seems exactly what jack wants. Louis, normally I would have never agreed with you here. In reply to this post by Bret On Wed, Jan 13, at 7: Reading but not using is not stealing, and proving damages for something like this heavily depends on any commercial use for which there is none for MS-DOS 2.

Jim On Wed, Jan 13, at 1: So Linus was full within the rights granted by Tanenbaum Prentice-Hall as the publisher. I'm not implying he "copied" anything as it was and still is copyrighted. I cannot speak for Linux, as I have never used it.

Music On Jan 13, 1: In reply to this post by dmccunney. I'm not implying that he broke anything, but he did heavily study and learn from Minix. In reply to this post by Eric Auer-3 I am concerned by this statement from Jack's email: His kernel was monolithic, not a microkernel, and many other differences.

In reply to this post by Louis Santillan. I do not think it likely that Microsoft would take action against an open source DOS operating system inbut that does not matter. He presumably implemented compatible file system support for minixfs before ext or ext2 were developed. Going after something like FreeDOS would take far more time and expense than it would conceivably be worth, and I can't see them bothering.

Everything else is just a guessing game, letting irrational anxiety control us. Minix was not "freed" untiland of course it was heavily rewritten later anyways v3 to where very little is even similar to classic v2 versions.

UltraDMA warning corrected

Why else would he constantly lie about everything? In reply to this post by Jim Hall I tried to tell you this. We want to avoid any suggestion that FreeDOS has been 'tainted' by this proprietary code.

If you examine Microsoft's source code, then you become "tainted" legal term to mean information was obtained illegally or unlawfully.