Not at all. I'm more interested in the general attitude of the FOSS community toward people taking someone else's source, compiling it - perhaps even without any modifications or tweaks - and then charging for it. I get that yes, what is done here is legal (although the DOSBot guy claims he refuses …

I'd be that moron, but thanks for the nod!

I agree. While I'm a cheapskate who doesn't really want to pay $4 for an Android port, it pisses me off even more that the guy is making money off someone else's work. The least he could do is share the fruit of his not-so-laborious efforts with the guys who made his port possible.

Indeed - it appears that v2 has nothing regarding DRM, and v3 allows for it but waives legal right to pursue anyone who circumvents it. The more I've learned about GPL, the more weak it seems. There is very little in place to protect developers. I'm disappointed - but at the same time am grateful …

Interestingly enough, the developer of DOSBox Turbo has included anti-copying code to check for a valid license. How is that compatible with GPL v2?

Is there anything stopping them from finding a better license and releasing the next major version release under that license? Sorry if that's a stupid question...

I get that he has to - that doesn't mean that he will. The DOSBot guy explicitly says that he won't release his source. I know that this isn't the first time someone has profited off of the DOSBox's devs' hard work. Doesn't make it any more okay, though. Does the fee allowance in GPL v2 provide for …

I did - that's why I'm asking. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... b) You …

This is pretty ridiculous. GPL v2 states that a fee can only be charged to cover the cost of distributing copies of a program or derived works. It costs nothing to distribute apps on Google Play, aside from the registration fee. The DOSBox Turbo dev is explicitly stating that he's charging a fee to …

Someone has released an Android port of DOSBox on the Google Play store and is currently charging for it which, unless I'm misreading the content of GPL v2, is a violation of the license DOSBox is released under. Can anything be done to address this?