VOGONS

Common searches


reporting GPL violation of DOSBox source

Topic actions

  • This topic is locked. You cannot reply or edit posts.

Reply 21 of 35, by Great Hierophant

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Suppose I were to take the regular DOSBox source and add a feature, say 3D on the fly conversion for DOS games. Ignore for the moment how I am supposed to do that, but I do it and it works. I think I should get paid for this feature, so I will charge anyone who wants to download my build $1.00 USD. Under the GPL, I have to make the source code for my version, including my 3D patch, available to anyone who purchases my DOSBox build.

Now the first person who pays me for the privilege of downloading the binary demands the source. I must make it available to him. The GPL allows him to freely distribute the binary and source, including my additions to it, to everybody else. If that person looks at my 3D code and thinks he can do better, he can build on my efforts and charge for it. But the first guy who buys his version can make it public.

http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/ - Nerdly Pleasures - My Retro Gaming, Computing & Tech Blog

Reply 22 of 35, by nikiniki

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Great Hierophant wrote:

Suppose I were to take the regular DOSBox source and add a feature, say 3D on the fly conversion for DOS games. Ignore for the moment how I am supposed to do that, but I do it and it works. I think I should get paid for this feature, so I will charge anyone who wants to download my build $1.00 USD. Under the GPL, I have to make the source code for my version, including my 3D patch, available to anyone who purchases my DOSBox build.

Now the first person who pays me for the privilege of downloading the binary demands the source. I must make it available to him. The GPL allows him to freely distribute the binary and source, including my additions to it, to everybody else. If that person looks at my 3D code and thinks he can do better, he can build on my efforts and charge for it. But the first guy who buys his version can make it public.

Well ...

If I buy your Dosbox 3D, improve it and released it free with source code available for free. You won't make money because I would release it free.

Is it still legal?

Reply 25 of 35, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

After getting it explained and your flaw in your readoning pointed out, you still went to slashdot? Wow, that's classic...

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 26 of 35, by shifuimam

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

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 to release his source, which is NOT in compliance with GPL v2), but the bigger question remains open for input from the community in general.

I've found this entire discussion to be pretty educational. I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong, nor was I butthurt. It's pretty clear that GPL is not the end-all, be-all licensing option for software developers who choose to release their software open source. And, as you mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, there is at least some opinion here that the DOSBox devs probably would have gone with a different license to begin with if they knew this was going to happen.

Reply 27 of 35, by Great Hierophant

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
nikiniki wrote:
Well ... […]
Show full quote
Great Hierophant wrote:

Suppose I were to take the regular DOSBox source and add a feature, say 3D on the fly conversion for DOS games. Ignore for the moment how I am supposed to do that, but I do it and it works. I think I should get paid for this feature, so I will charge anyone who wants to download my build $1.00 USD. Under the GPL, I have to make the source code for my version, including my 3D patch, available to anyone who purchases my DOSBox build.

Now the first person who pays me for the privilege of downloading the binary demands the source. I must make it available to him. The GPL allows him to freely distribute the binary and source, including my additions to it, to everybody else. If that person looks at my 3D code and thinks he can do better, he can build on my efforts and charge for it. But the first guy who buys his version can make it public.

Well ...

If I buy your Dosbox 3D, improve it and released it free with source code available for free. You won't make money because I would release it free.

Is it still legal?

I cannot see why you couldn't just purchase one copy of my hypothetical DOSBox build and then freely distribute the binary as you like. Most people don't care about sources, they just want some free stuff. Heck, until this year I had no idea how to compile vanilla SVN DOSBox from source, and that still is about all I can do. If you had the source to one of the Android DOSBox ports, would you know how to turn it into an executable apk?

http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/ - Nerdly Pleasures - My Retro Gaming, Computing & Tech Blog

Reply 28 of 35, by nikiniki

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Great Hierophant wrote:
nikiniki wrote:
Well ... […]
Show full quote
Great Hierophant wrote:

Suppose I were to take the regular DOSBox source and add a feature, say 3D on the fly conversion for DOS games. Ignore for the moment how I am supposed to do that, but I do it and it works. I think I should get paid for this feature, so I will charge anyone who wants to download my build $1.00 USD. Under the GPL, I have to make the source code for my version, including my 3D patch, available to anyone who purchases my DOSBox build.

Now the first person who pays me for the privilege of downloading the binary demands the source. I must make it available to him. The GPL allows him to freely distribute the binary and source, including my additions to it, to everybody else. If that person looks at my 3D code and thinks he can do better, he can build on my efforts and charge for it. But the first guy who buys his version can make it public.

Well ...

If I buy your Dosbox 3D, improve it and released it free with source code available for free. You won't make money because I would release it free.

Is it still legal?

I cannot see why you couldn't just purchase one copy of my hypothetical DOSBox build and then freely distribute the binary as you like. Most people don't care about sources, they just want some free stuff. Heck, until this year I had no idea how to compile vanilla SVN DOSBox from source, and that still is about all I can do. If you had the source to one of the Android DOSBox ports, would you know how to turn it into an executable apk?

Not necessary. I would make my own Android version of Dosbox from scratch, I won't need any android Dosbox source codes for it.

Reply 29 of 35, by SquallStrife

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

DOSBox Turbo supposedly contains some optimised ARM assembly, it's not just a straight compile of SVN for Android.

But in theory, nikiniki is correct. Someone should buy DOSBox Turbo, get the source code, compile it, and put it on Android Market for free. What's a bet that the author withholds his custom bits with the excuse "Oh, I didn't GPL the parts I wrote, just the bits I used from the DOSBox project."

It seems like it'd be an expensive exercise though, he wants what, $50 for it? Pshht.

Edit: It's only $3.50 AUD.... Tempting...

VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread

Reply 30 of 35, by VileR

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Really don't get all the bashing. So the OP had misinterpreted the GPL on his first read - he's owned up to it, let's move on.

DosBox Turbo isn't the problem; the author has even commented in the slashdot thread, claiming that he does provide the source to users who purchase the binary. (link - claims that he's sent his sources to DOSBox devs too)... as far as that is true, there's no violation involved.

The problem is with DosBot, aka "PLAY PC GAMES ON YOUR DROID" (caps-lock abuse left intact): the guy is distributing it as closed source. Even if he's charging only a dollar for the program, that's rampant infringement of the GPL. As long as he doesn't supply his source code to his end users, it doesn't matter if he prices the binary at $1,000 or provides it for free.

I'll readily agree that the GPL is not ideal (if pressed, I'd also express my firm personal belief that Stallman smells). But this app has been sitting on Google Play store for almost 2 years while violating DOSBox's license. It hasn't been updated in almost as long, and all recent user reviews say it doesn't even work, but it would be nice to see it given a mercy-killing. It's up to the devs to decide whether or not they want to do something about it, but it's good that the OP brought it up.

[ WEB ] - [ BLOG ] - [ TUBE ] - [ CODE ]

Reply 31 of 35, by gulikoza

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
shifuimam wrote:

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.

Being able to charge for GPL software is also the driving force behind it. I highly doubt big players like RedHat, IBM, Novell... would contribute so much code to the community if they wouldn't be able to charge for their software. FOSS community knows that... But just like CentOS can release unmodified (the GPL portion...) rebuild of RedHat Enterprise Server for free, anybody could post a rebuild of the android port. That's the reason why most GPL programs are free, since if it's not, the next person can release it for free...

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

Reply 32 of 35, by trlkly

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

The point is, the fact that no one has done so and released said software on Google Play means that either we are incompetent or he is doing something to actively prevent this usage.

I don't understand why you guys keep saying you need to recompile it, either. The GPL covers not only the source but the compiled binary. You don't need to recompile, just use it.

The rumors I had heard was that the developer actively tries to stop this by reporting apps on the market that copy the project. I've also read his FAQ, where he lies about why people give 1-star reviews of his program, claiming that it's because they don't like competition, and not because he's selling stuff that the original authors didn't want sold.

If I were the devs, I'd not only buy the software and get the source, but I'd also publish the software here. (Again, no need to recompile. You just need the source to comply with the GPL.) But, for some reason, the devs here seem to be very inactive, taking a much more resigned view of everything.

And I do think they should look into relicensing, if they can get all the devs together. I've seen open source software relicensed as closed source before, so surely they could relicense to just a non-commercial one. The current versions would remain GPL, but the others could be changed because you got it from the original author and not the GPL'd version.

(I don't know if the GPL has the force of law in preventing this.)

Reply 33 of 35, by gplfan

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

All we need is someone to buy one copy (sorry, college student here, not desparate enough myself), request source code, release it, then re-release it whenever any updates happen. That is, assuming anybody can get ahold of the developer. I don't see any email address to request codes from.

Here's the relevant links:

https://magicbox.imejl.sk/gpl-faq/
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Doe … abilityToPublic

And an older, free version:

https://github.com/nvllsvm/MagicDosBox

Reply 34 of 35, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Great Hierophant wrote:

I cannot see why you couldn't just purchase one copy of my hypothetical DOSBox build and then freely distribute the binary as you like. Most people don't care about sources, they just want some free stuff. Heck, until this year I had no idea how to compile vanilla SVN DOSBox from source, and that still is about all I can do. If you had the source to one of the Android DOSBox ports, would you know how to turn it into an executable apk?

How this is usually done involves freely providing the source code under GPL but providing an integrated build with your binary and proprietary assets (like art work or documentation) alongside. Users can still freely get the source code from you, but they can't freely distribute the integrated package due to the extra material which is under another license. This is okay if the GPL software doesn't compile in or link with anything proprietary.

So, customers would have a choice between a dubious copy or your version with branding, documentation, and real support.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder