3 ms·
This is a cool historical artifact, and I'm glad MS released it. I don't think there's much to gain in releasing it under a broader license - I would imagine t
by e1ven 13y ago
This is a cool historical artifact, and I'm glad MS released it.
I don't think there's much to gain in releasing it under a broader license - I would imagine that most programs that would need to expand or otherwise build upon this code would be better served by using one of the modern clones, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeDOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeDOS
They have a modern toolchain, are actively in development, and seem like they would be much easier to add features to, if one found themselves with such a need.
- dalek2point3 13y agobut, but -- you're assuming that what I want to do is build on DOS to do what DOS did but better. What if I wanted to visualize the code in some interesting way? What if I wanted to compare the first versions of Linux and DOS and compare them for their modularity and do a research project on how they affected productivity in firms? And these are only the use cases that I could think of while finishing my cup of tea ...
- e1ven 13y agoFair enough, those sound like awesome projects. The difference between the MS license and most OSS licenses is that this does not include redistribution. I'm a proponent of OSS, and if MS wanted to release this under MIT that'd be great.. But I have a hard time thinking of projects that are stopped by the current license. My guess is that creating a visualization would be a rather transformative use of the work - Redistributing your resulting visualization would likely be firmly in fair use territory. Comparing the code for modularity is writing an essay. You don't need a redistribution license for the code to do that. In any event, I hope they do eventually release using an open license. But as a fan of the history of our industry, I'm glad they released it at all.