MS-DOS 7.1 Licencing

[mrpi64]

MS-DOS is licenced under GNU GPL v2.0. I am a bit confused with the GPL - does it state that what-ever is registered under it has to be open source? Or can it be closed source?

If so, that means that I can access the MS-DOS 7.1 source, right? Or wrong? Because I can't find any links to it, only to MS-DOS 1.25 & 2.0 (http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/mi ... urce-code/).

Have I interpreted the licence wrong? If you want to download MS-DOS 7.1 (with a file called LICENCE.TXT in it, which does state something on the lines of it being open source), check ******************* (not sure if I should put that up).

[ghans]

MS-DOS 7.1 ist most definitely not under GPL or open-source.

MS-DOS is not "Abandonware" . Microsoft still sells MS-DOS till
this day.

Furthermore the whole concept of "Abandonware" is legally
completely untenable and a thin disguise for outright piracy.

ghans

[rpdom]

Microsoft only released the source code for MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 under GPL. All other MS-DOS versions are still closed source.

[ghans]

The Microsoft Research License Agreement is not the GPL and
is in fact outright GPL incompatible.

ghans

[redhawk]

Why bother even if it was free??

MS-DOS is just a disk operating system with a few fancy file create, move, delete, and rename commands.
Furthermore it's limited to fat file system and lacks USB support which would severely limit it's usefulness.

Richard S.

[mrpi64]

????????

msdos-installer.JPG (43.25 KiB) Viewed 3706 times

[mrpi64]

Oh, wait, that's just the installer that is licenced under GPL, as it is a .bas file (methinks)?

[ghans]

Nope , somebody thought he/she was funny ... Microsoft never released MS-DOS 7.1 directly.
If you want a legal and free (not just shared source) DOS-compatible operating system , look at FreeDOS.

http://www.freedos.org

ghans

[fruitoftheloom]

It states MS-DOS 7.10, that was never offered as a standalone product by M$ , the last version they released was 6.22 Retail & OEM, but there was a special verdion 6.23 OEM.

The version you have is a Chinese Hacked Version ripped from Windows 98SE which has been around for years and years and is totally illegal, though it does work !

[ghans]

Oh, that makes perfect sense. I suggest probing those guys for the source of the "GPL'ed" binaries they provide ,
as they are legally obliged

ghans

[mrpi64]

Nope , somebody thought he/she was funny ... Microsoft never released MS-DOS 7.1 directly.
If you want a legal and free (not just shared source) DOS-compatible operating system , look at FreeDOS.

http://www.freedos.org

ghans

How did they get the source?

[ShiftPlusOne]

Nope , somebody thought he/she was funny ... Microsoft never released MS-DOS 7.1 directly.
If you want a legal and free (not just shared source) DOS-compatible operating system , look at FreeDOS.

http://www.freedos.org

ghans

How did they get the source?

They didn't get it, they wrote it. It wouldn't be Free™ otherwise.

[mrpi64]

Well, why would you do that?

[ShiftPlusOne]

Well, why would you do that?

Why would people write ReactOS, LibreOffice, WINE or any other open source software when they can pirate the closed alternatives instead? To get a proper free, open-source alternative to closed software.

[mrpi64]

And usually better. Look at OpenTTD. Look at GCC. Look at Linux!

[ShiftPlusOne]

I don't know about 'better'. OpenDOS, ReactOS, WINE, Libre/OpenOffice, most video, image, vector, flowchart or accounting software and many other open source projects are an uphill struggle to use when compared to the closed alternatives. All it would take to fix the situation would be funding, I think. Most of the Linux contributions are by people paid to work on it by the large companies (Intel, IBM, Novell, Redhat, Oracle and so on). Blender has some large investors and it's very polished as well.

[abishur]

Furthermore the whole concept of "Abandonware" is legally
completely untenable and a thin disguise for outright piracy.

ghans

Interestingly, the DMCA of 2013 has stated that in certain circumstances you are allowed to make use of abandonware, specifically:

3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. ...The register has concluded that to the extent that libraries and archives wish to make preservation copies of published software and videogames that were distributed in formats that are (either because the physical medium on which they were distributed is no longer in use or because the use of an obsolete operating system is required), such activity is a noninfringing use covered by section 108(c) of the Copyright Act."

(taken from Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, Page 4)

But like you said, the actual ability to defend yourself in court even citing the above and claiming you're an archiver is likely nil, and while I find the seemingly over generous blanket condemnation of abandonware as piracy slightly heavy handed and regardless of the way the law *should* be to encourage innovation and how software *should* be more freely accessible once the company is no longer distributing it and hasn't been since the 80s, the law is... archaically draconian when it comes to DRM and the law tends to agree with the stance that everything you do is piracy.

Sorry bout that, let me just put this soapbox away and I'll be getting my hat.