Re: [Freedos-devel] FAT patents and freedos?

Hello Blair, > If something ever were to come up to restrict FreeDOS support for FAT, > it would always be possible to implement another filesystem, such as > LeanFS or ext2. just implement LeanFS or ext2 for xxDOS, and you'll see why that's no option tom -

Re: [Freedos-devel] FAT patents and freedos?

If something ever were to come up to restrict FreeDOS support for FAT, it would always be possible to implement another filesystem, such as LeanFS or ext2. -- Fall is my favorite season in Los Angeles, watching the birds change color and fall from the trees. David Letterman (1947 - ) See ya

Re: [Freedos-devel] FAT patents and freedos?

I started looking more into the patents in question, and I'm not really concerned with respect to FreeDOS. The 3 patents listed on are: * U.S. Patent #5,579,517 Common name space for long and short filenames * U.S. Patent #5,758,352 Commo

Re: [Freedos-devel] /M in SHSUCDX

Aitor Santamaría Merino wrote: > ATAPICD) agrees too. I assume the license of XCDROM is "good enough", > right? Yes, GNU GPL should be enough. ;-) Robert Riebisch -- BTTR Software http://www.bttr-software.de/ --- This SF.net email is sponsor

Re: [Freedos-devel] FAT patents and freedos?

And anyway, if it weren't so, we would look how it would impact on the Linux operating system. What is good for Linux would be good for us to. Aitor Jim Hall escribió: Markus Laire wrote: Slashdot has an article "Microsoft FAT Patent Upheld" http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/11/05

Re: [Freedos-devel] /M in SHSUCDX

Many thanks, Blair. I had it on my todo list but couldn't cope with it. Also thinking of the future of this bunch of info after FreeDOS 1.0. BTW, I also agree with the XCDROM stuff, now that Jeremy (=mainainer of ATAPICD) agrees too. I assume the license of XCDROM is "good enough", right? Ait

Re: [Freedos-devel] FDPKG translation

Hi Blair, Have you received my last mail about correcting some messages before translating? Blair Campbell escreveu: I see that there is a partial translation to portuguese/Brazil. I can finish it, but who made it and is anyone working on it? I just don't want to make diplicate efforts.

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: More Wiki Spam

Johnson Lam escreveu: Of course, no need to login is better, but the world is so realistic that bad guys DID exist. Unfortunatly yes. :( :( Or consider register email address instead of login name, a valid email address should be more difficult for SPAMMERS. Are you meaning that you have

Re: [Freedos-devel] Re: another wiki idea...

This feature (as it is implemented in pmwiki) is enabled on wiki.fdos.org. Jeremy On Tue, January 10, 2006 1:30 pm, Alain wrote: > Eric sent this, I think it is a good idea too, so I am copying to the > list :) > >> Not sure, we might already have that, but: Some Wiki >> systems have the functio

Re: [Freedos-devel] re: More Wiki Spam

On Tue, January 10, 2006 7:57 pm, Johnson Lam wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:18:25 -0200, you wrote: > > Hi, > >>It not a good thing to ban IPs. Most people now use dynamic IPs, that >>means that I can get of of a pool of 1 million IPs. If you ban some of >>these IPs, one day I could be luky to ge

Re: [Freedos-devel] FAT patents and freedos?

Markus Laire wrote: Slashdot has an article "Microsoft FAT Patent Upheld" http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/11/0555252&tid=155&tid=109 The discussion also links to the page "FAT File System Technology License" http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp Does anyone know if this i

[Freedos-devel] FAT patents and freedos?

Slashdot has an article "Microsoft FAT Patent Upheld" http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/11/0555252&tid=155&tid=109 The discussion also links to the page "FAT File System Technology License" http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp Does anyone know if this is a problem for FreeDO