Talk:DOS Navigator

message: It would be good if someone who knows how created a wiki link to this article from Necromancer's DOS Navigator.  It would be OK if most all the NDN material was moved there, but it also makes just as much sense to leave all the DN versions combined in one article like this for now.69.87.193.72 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have set up a redirect, so Necromancer's DOS Navigator redirects to this article now.--Commander Keane 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NDN - Necromancer's DOS Navigator

message: :Image:DN Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DN Logo.jpg

message: subj. Did they close sources of their DN branch?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.123.133 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  License? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 03:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: DOS Navigator →  – Incorrect case in the product name, see the talk page; the authors of the product use name "Dos Navigator", not "DOS Navigator" - see official page https://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/dn/ - download the sources and see inside (e.g. readme) or run binaries or find screenshots in the Internet with the about box Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Software has been notified of this discussion. signed, 511KeV    (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, we often do not defer to product creators when choosing how to refer to the product, and especially in matters of styling such as capitalization. See WP:OFFICIALNAME / MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still seeing it capped as an acronym in independent sources used in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 April 2022 

message: This article incorrectly states in two places (info box and a section on the license) that the license is BSD 3-clause. While the license does have "3 clauses", the third one appears to be an advertising clause like the third clause of the infamous BSD 4-clause license. I downloaded the "Dos Navigator 1.51 sources (926K)" from https://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/dn/ This is the last clause:
> 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: "Based on Dos Navigator by RIT Research Labs."
"BSD-3-Clause" is generally understood as a BSD license with the advertising clause dropped which this isn't. I didn't compare the entire license text outside this clause but I don't think it's the same as the well-known BSD-3-Clause either.
Further, the license contains a sort of copyleft notice in that it forbids changing the license of derivatives, specifically targeted against combining the work with works under the GNU GPL:
> The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence (including the GNU Public Licence).
I believe this is the text used by FASM as well, or at least similar to it. I don't know where it originated though. 176.1.243.148 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  License is not BSD 3-clause