VOGONS

Common searches


Reply 100 of 149, by gulikoza

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I don't think changing licenses or granting exceptions is a possibility. There are far too many copyright holders. Think of the OPL code, it is already included only because of the special permission the authors gave to DOSBox team...

http://www.si-gamer.net/gulikoza

Reply 103 of 149, by `Moe`

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Which means DOSBox has no legal OPL code?

I see there is no GPL notice at the head of ymf262.c. So what exactly are the licensing terms and the special exception? If they don't allow anyone ripping them out and incorporating them in other GPL-licensed programs, they are not compatible with the GPL and the code can't be distributed with DOSBox.

I hope they are compatible, but I was not able to find out any more information about it.

Reply 104 of 149, by wd

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

With all this discussion i suppose it'll result in stopping development anyways,
which means much more free time for me so it's fine with me anyways.

Don't know about what devilish license terms apply for the opl code,
was way before my time and something like a "ok" from the author
of that code.

Reply 105 of 149, by Moleculor

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Just a quick comment: The copy protection can't be built into the games themselves because DOSBox probably wouldn't be able to understand said copy protection (as it wouldn't be written for DOS, it'd be written for WinXP).

About the only solution is a launcher before DOSBox, but even then that's not really copy protection. This seems like the one instance where copy protection is going to fail in Steam.

Reply 106 of 149, by MiniMax

User metadata
Rank Moderator
Rank
Moderator
gulikoza wrote:

The basics of GPL are not that hard to understand. One has to remember that dosbox distributed with Steam is also GPL (since the authors have not given Valve/Id a different license). And as such, you have to have the ability to modify it, distribute it and even sell it further. You cannot do that if it's linked with proprietary steam.dll...and Valve cannot impose copy restrictions on it (they can on the games, but not dosbox). It would be perfectly legal for somebody to attach the dosbox.exe and all related (but not game) files to this forum for examination 😀

I think you are wrong. I have tried to come up with an analogy that also involves a proprietary DLL. Suppose I made a superfast dynamic core for the ARM processor using proprietary technology. It would be delivered as a separate DLL. For it to be usable by DOSBox I also came up with a set of patches for the standard DOSBox distribution that when applied made my DLL mandatory. The patches would be open and free, but the actual DLL would not.

In that scenario, would I be allowed to distribute a binary DOSBox with my patches applied?

DOSBox 60 seconds guide | How to ask questions
_________________
Lenovo M58p | Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz | Radeon R7 240 | LG HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH40N | Fedora 32

Reply 107 of 149, by gulikoza

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Actually depends on what you are distributing 😀. You are free to distribute the sources of your patched dosbox (obviously). You would be free to distribute your proprietary binary DLL (provided you did not include any dosbox headers or link with any other GPL software in the making - kinda hard if you are making a new cpu core, but let's say it works 😁) in a separate package under your license. But the minute you distribute a compiled and linked dosbox executable that has your DLL as a requirement, you are making an extended version of dosbox that is one whole program and has to be GPL. Simply wrapping proprietary code into a DLL does not get you off or everybody would do it. That's why LGPL was invented. (Plain)GPL libraries can only be used in GPL programs!

Now, the license cannot distinguish what was first - your DLL or dosbox, or in this case is dosbox linked to Steam or Steam to dosbox. It only says that "Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on ABC." So linking with Steam libraries makes that a combined work based on DOSBox and such a GPL work. That's why GPL is sometimes considered a "viral" license - it "infects" everything it touches 😀
To distribute non-free programs with GPL software, "...you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." This is clearly not the case when a modified dosbox version needs steam.dll to function properly.

Now, there was an interesting post on the steam forums, I thought I'd post it here before it gets lost:

ATimson wrote:

If it's truely a binary wrapper, injected into a compiled EXE and not edited into the source code, then I think the following could be considered as applying:

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."

If it can be unassociated into a binary identical to the unwrapped one, there's a definite argument that the wrapper constitutes a distribution medium.

If this really holds...I don't know 😀

http://www.si-gamer.net/gulikoza

Reply 108 of 149, by gulikoza

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

And btw, you have provided an excellent example why GPL is the way it is. What would happen if I could make for example my Glide patch closed source and would sell it for 10$? Or Moe would sell his OpenGl-HQ scaler? The whole DOSBox team would be improving the program and we would be the only ones making money with plugins 😀

(but if wd decides to commit all his cpu core improvements into a seperate dll, charges for the dll and a program to binary patch the original dosbox.exe with the new function addresses - then, we're all in trouble 🤣 🤣)

http://www.si-gamer.net/gulikoza

Reply 112 of 149, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Moleculor wrote:

Aye, Valve's awesome, despite some whiners' dislike of Steam. Just because it makes it so they can't steal the really good games isn't a reason to hate. 😜

The entire reason Valve is where it is today is because it listens to the community.

Yes, because of course everyone who doesn't like Steam is stealing.

I'd also like to hear how Steam prevents "stealing". I guess by "stealing" you mean the people who casually copy games, and if you think a casual user can't figure out how to download Steam games from a torrent then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. By the way "Stealing" isn't the correct term, it's called copyright infringement. Just like Stabbing versus cutting, there's a big difference.

Finally, if you check out the subject of this thread you'll see it's not about how "Awesome" Valve is or Steam and Stealing. It's about the Valve/ID screwup with DosBox. (Yes, they did screwup. Yes people did have a reason to "whine" so obviously Valve can't be that "Awesome") Try staying on topic.

Last edited by DosFreak on 2007-08-08, 06:31. Edited 1 time in total.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Make your games work offline

Reply 113 of 149, by dh4rm4

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I like Source games on the whole and I tend to like VALVe's approach in general but I really dislike how they handled distributing these id games. The whole thing smacks of laziness and lack of forethought. While it's nice to see DOSBox getting distributed I personally feel that these games should be in the public domain as in my mind they are the FPS equivalent of chess.

Reply 114 of 149, by Dan Forever

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
MiniMax wrote:
Keep it coming, keep it coming :) […]
Show full quote
gulikoza wrote:

And to keep spamming this thread 😀

Keep it coming, keep it coming 😀

gulikoza wrote:

One solution I see is...you build copy protection into the games, not dosbox.

Problem is, that id Software probably do not have the capability to modify the games any more. The source maybe lost, documentation gone, compilers, linkers, etc not available any more, etc, etc. Of course - if money was no problem, I am sure some tinkering with DEBUG could produce the copy protection you are thinking about.

I thought I should jump in at this point and mention that id software have released the source code to their old games (Up to and including Quake 3 as the most recent I believe) into the public domain. A quick web search should be all that's needed to find them. As I understand it though, whilst the source code is available, the assets are not, so technically speaking you still need to own the original copy of the game if you wished to run the game using your own compiled version of the executable.

Thinking about it now I think Gentoo Portage actually compiles the games from source now when you install them 😀

Reply 115 of 149, by halo

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Dan Forever wrote:

thought I should jump in at this point and mention that id software have released the source code to their old games (Up to and including Quake 3 as the most recent I believe) into the public domain.

It's worth mentioning that they're not in the public domain, but they are licensed under the GPL v2 and are free software. There's a big difference in what's required - as you can tell from this thread.

I'm leaning on the side of them not complying with the GPL still - certainly iffy ground using a wrapper. I definitely think they are slowly but surely getting towards compliance though, and including the source and licence is certainly a step in the right direction.

Reply 116 of 149, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

According to this article: http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_ … d=6735&Itemid=2

ID considers it a "dead issue" and "it was all immediately corrected".

I like how the article author mentions that it was a "supposed" issue. heh.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Make your games work offline

Reply 118 of 149, by MiniMax

User metadata
Rank Moderator
Rank
Moderator

Depends on who you ask. I say no.

Edit: IMO it all depends on how the Steam'mified DOSBox was produced. If it was produced by editing the original source files and then compiling & linking a new DOSBox, then I think id Software are obliged to publish their changes. I also believe that obligation extends to publishing the source to the library (steam.dll) that the new Steam'ified DOSBox are linked to.

However, if the Steam'ified DOSBox is produced by other means, e.g. by a utility that somehow "glues" the original dosbox.exe to the steam.dll producing the Steam'ified DOSBox, and - and this is the important stuff - it is possible to "unglue" the Steam'ified DOSBox and retrieve the original DOSBox, then Steam/Valve/id Software might be in the clear.

I am still sitting here, popcorn at the ready, waiting for more news.

DOSBox 60 seconds guide | How to ask questions
_________________
Lenovo M58p | Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz | Radeon R7 240 | LG HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH40N | Fedora 32

Reply 119 of 149, by v0g0ns

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Depends on who you ask. I say no. […]
Show full quote

Depends on who you ask. I say no.

Edit: IMO it all depends on how the Steam'mified DOSBox was produced. If it was produced by editing the original source files and then compiling & linking a new DOSBox, then I think id Software are obliged to publish their changes. I also believe that obligation extends to publishing the source to the library (steam.dll) that the new Steam'ified DOSBox are linked to.

However, if the Steam'ified DOSBox is produced by other means, e.g. by a utility that somehow "glues" the original dosbox.exe to the steam.dll producing the Steam'ified DOSBox, and - and this is the important stuff - it is possible to "unglue" the Steam'ified DOSBox and retrieve the original DOSBox, then Steam/Valve/id Software might be in the clear.

I am still sitting here, popcorn at the ready, waiting for more news.

Yea, I'm waiting for more news too, but somehow, I doubt that valve and/or id will come clean about how the steamified dosbox was assembled. "security (and in this case unliability) through obscurity" probably they'll argue.

Rise of the Triad forum