GW-BASIC

ment that allow reprogramming the non-bootloader-locked microcontroller inside. An SDK (https://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv018.c...) (consisting mostly of a keypad test demo) filled in the remaining pieces (how the keyboard matrix worked, and how to get code running on the ARM CPU, basically), and the result was the WP-34S firmware that reimplemented calculator functionality completely from scratch (the code samples in the SDK provided zero such functionality). TL;DR, this kind of thing can definitely work and be constrained to a nice little obscure niche of very happy people with low/zero external side effects. In this case, I wouldn't even mind if the code was released under a similar license to what D used to use (https://archive.ph/20161022202138/https://github.com/dlang/d...) before Symantec relinquished control of the project (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/oc8acc$1ei9$1@digitalmars.com) and it was made fully open-source (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14060846). Microsoft licensing GW-BASIC (https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC) and early versions of MS-DOS (https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS) under MIT is... fascinating but understandable, yet entirely unnecessary. "View only with no repercussions but not open source" works for historical interest just fine too. What is a very good question is whether adequate precedent was set by relinquishing D that it would be tractably viable for say one or two individual campaigners to internally achieve something similar for arbitrary effectively-abandonware software that is only of historical interest. (If this turns out to not be possible because QEMM and/or DESQview are actively being supported in some way I think the whole retrocomputing scene would be very curious to hear about that through the grapevine!) Thanks for the interesting info about PC-DOS. That's very cool!