• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

CP/M article on The Register

Seems that now most of the principals involved in CP/M have "moved on", all sorts of "interesting" opinions arrive--some of which are marvelously devoid of factual information. I quit reading after a few.
 
www.theregister.com

The many derivatives of the CP/M operating system

After a long and surprisingly varied dynasty, it's possible they're all FOSS now
www.theregister.com www.theregister.com
if you don't want to read the commentary from the peanut gallery.

the article rambles, and never seems to bother to say what the issue actually was
with the Caldara license and the hoops Gaby had to go through to get it fixed

"its possible they're all FOSS now" ????
 
I would have preferred if Bryan Sparks had provided a list of which CP/M versions and derivatives were owned by DRDOS, Inc in 2022 or by Lineo in 2001. The license is very nice but some of the "derivatives" people want to open source may not be covered.
 
The issue was that the 2001 licence granted permission only to distribute "the CP/M technology" as part of the "Unofficial CP/M Web Site", so no-one else could legally distribute it. The 2022 licence removes that limitation and gives everybody the right to "use, distribute, modify, enhance, and otherwise make available in a nonexclusive manner CP/M and its derivatives."

The linked article is exploring what Digital Research products that permission might cover. CP/M? Explicitly covered. CP/M-86 and Personal CP/M-86? Almost certainly covered too. MP/M? Concurrent CP/M? No-one's objected to them being distributed under the previous licence for the last 20 years. But there's then a clear line of development to DOS Plus, which has a DOS userland on the PCP/M-86 kernel -- is that covered by the language about derivatives? If so, what about DRDOS proper? And so on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top