https://www.reddit.com/r/DOS/comments/1rnfw4e/ive_been_quietly_rebuilding_dr_dos_from_scratch/
It's a full proprietary software with an EULA with restrictions on uses...
And the author claims that SvarDOS has "legal ambiguity". Is it FUD?
Yes, seems to be proprietary (and closed source? didn't check). So much for "unencumbered". Quoth
https://www.dr-dos.com/releases/9.0/9.0.291/license.txt :
> This Software is licensed for NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY. You may use this Software solely for personal, educational, or experimental purposes.
And:
> The license is NON-TRANSFERABLE. You may not transfer this Software or any copies to any third party. Licensor reserves the right to revoke this license at any time, with or without cause, in its sole discretion.
The license for the EDR-DOS kernel and shell that SvarDOS uses is in
https://pushbx.org/ecm/download/edrdos/license.htm The license is questionable, some don't consider EDR-DOS a CP/M derivative. (In my defense there's copyright statements indicating 1976 in the sources, which must reference the CP/M origin.)
From the website:
> Low-Level Access: PEEK, POKE, and JMP commands for direct memory manipulation and code execution - perfect for hackers and experimenters
> For Hackers: DR DOS 9.0 includes unique memory manipulation commands (PEEK, POKE, JMP) that allow direct access to system memory, making it an excellent platform for learning about operating systems, testing low-level code, and DOS development.
Thanks but I think I'll keep using the FLOSS debugger that we've been developing for the past 28 years. Unreasonable of course, I mean who could have use for more than peek, poke, and jump?
My two cents:
This DR-DOS 9 project looks like an entire "build me a DOS" exercise, ran on AI. Code quality looks like assembler snippets generated by AI (which more often than not result on sloppy/buggy code interpretation), all these glued together to build a DOS that has nothing to do with any former DR-DOS, but its name.
The documentation which is also AI generated, looks to be great, which is something that AI usually excels at. Licensing is oddly confusing for this time and age: it is free single user, non-open until the IP holder decides to withdraw that license for whatever reason.
The good thing is that it is some sort of DOS development, which I always welcome. The bad is that I smell AI "borrowed" code all over the place just by debugging it. It lacks a lot of polish, which is the most labor intense part of manual (human) assembler development.
I don't really see the point in making an obscure closed source DOS from scratch in 2026. I suppose that the developer s having fun doing it, because I don't see any other practical uses.
It doesn't work on 808x and 286 and it seems that the developer has no interest in making it compatible.
I'm not sure that this sort of DOS development is that much welcome. These efforts could have been put to good used as contributions to FreeDOS or SvarDOS, or as a fork. Instead, it's a mostly incompatible DOS derivative based on "Historical continuity", whatever that means.
As I said in a comment in the reddit post, It's odd for such a project to have an EULA at all, and one that is restrictive nonetheless, with clauses such as "copies to any third party. Licensor reserves the right to revoke this license at any time, with or without cause, in its sole discretion." And I say that as someone who wrote a Ph.d. thesis in software law. It's a misconception that some kind of EULA is required for a software to be distributed.