DOSBox is GPL licensed. To even relicense it commercially would require agreement from all source code authors, and that wouldn't preclude code already licensed under the GPL from being maintained as a fork.

Honestly, I'm not sure where this post is coming from.

Also, 0.74 was released six years ago and if any such "selling" was going to happen, it would have happened already.

Um yeah, DOSBox licensing precludes this.

keenmaster486 wrote:

Um yeah, DOSBox licensing precludes this.

DOSBox 0.75 needs something different

(tell them they're outdated). 😈

IIGS_User wrote:

DOSBox 0.75 needs something different

Maybe a 500 page EULA with fine print on page 384 that sells the user's soul to the devil

keenmaster486 wrote:

Um yeah, DOSBox licensing precludes this.

It doesn't preclude this. The source code authors can license their works how they see fit, including under multiple schemes. The problem in the case of DOSBox would be contacting all the contributors and getting them to agree to alternate licensing. Not very practical.

Not practical and not likely to happen but it has been done with other big projects (Mame)

gdjacobs wrote:

It doesn't preclude this. The source code authors can license their works how they see fit, including under multiple schemes. The problem in the case of DOSBox would be contacting all the contributors and getting them to agree to alternate licensing. Not very practical.

Yes, but I meant under current licensing. And you're right, nobody would ever agree to that.

Well, someone can certainly try to commercialize it, but they can't close the source under the current licensing scheme. In other words, we'll always have DOSBox unless all contributors agree to relicense.

I remember I once thought it would be useful for there to be a subtle way to identify if DOSBox is running – sort of like how some of the old Macintosh BIOS ROMs would display a "Stolen from Apple Computer" if you poked them in a certain way, or how an illegal ScummVM port was easily identified since it had exactly the same known bugs as a certain version of ScummVM.

But the ScummVM team, at least, had enough headaches trying to sort out that business when it cropped up and any such measure might well be more trouble than it is worth.

Dominus wrote:

Not practical and not likely to happen but it has been done with other big projects (Mame)

Hm, unless I'm misunderstanding you Dominus, I must correct you: MAME itself has never been sold with permission.

Information from MAME source was used in Taito Legends and Taito Legends 2 with permission from those various sourcecode files authors, that's all I can remember. (And these authors got credited, perhaps even paid, see MobyGames etc.)

MAME has itself been stolen and sold without permission many times, although its license did not permit it.

These days, MAME is GPL licensed (due to the individual sourcecode files that are). People can sell a binary they create based on it, but they must release their source. However, there's so much BSD-licensed code in it now that one could be quite close to creating a BSD-licensed MAME, if you could replace the GPL code.

You misunderstood me. Read the context. The poster before me wrote that it wouldn't be practical to get all contributors to okay a change of license. To that I replied that it has been done, and gave Mame as an example. And I am right about THAT, or?

Dominus wrote:

You misunderstood me. Read the context. The poster before me wrote that it wouldn't be practical to get all contributors to okay a change of license. To that I replied that it has been done, and gave Mame as an example. And I am right about THAT, or?

Aaaaaah, okay, I misunderstood.

Yes, MAME successfully relicensed the project from being a custom license that explicitly prohibited selling binaries, to being overall licensed GPL, which has no such explicit restriction, by reaching out to all contributors ever. And there's other open-source projects which have successfully relicensed by asking all past contributors, examples of VLC and Firefox leap to mind.

But yes, if you wanted to relicense a project to closed-source commercial project, you would need to get in touch with all contributors past and present for it to be "legally done".

Generally speaking though, GPL explicitly *permits* selling binaries, and as I understand it, you don't need to obtain permission from the creators, but you *do* need to release the sourcecode if you do things that way (especially if there's any changes). (which is more or less what permits GOG.com to do what they do, though my understanding is that GOG did reach out to DOSBox devs even though they didn't have to) - which is more an amendment to gdjacobs than you.

Anyone can make changes to DOSBox and then sell it commercially, they just have to release their sourcecode, which kinda takes the appeal out of selling it commercially. 😀

On that note, was the source code for DOSBox Turbo (i.e. the Android build) ever actually made available?

Stiletto wrote:

Generally speaking though, GPL explicitly *permits* selling binaries, and as I understand it, you don't need to obtain permission from the creators, but you *do* need to release the sourcecode if you do things that way (especially if there's any changes). (which is more or less what permits GOG.com to do what they do, though my understanding is that GOG did reach out to DOSBox devs even though they didn't have to) - which is more an amendment to gdjacobs than you.

Yes, that's my understanding as well. In fact, you can charge for distributing the source code, and the source code doesn't need to be released to the wide world. It just has to be made available to all users who can then redistribute it as they see fit.

The GPL isn't about price, it's about ensuring the freedom to work with and maintain software for users (and businesses).

Yeah, there is another iOS version that the "developers" refuse to answer mails about the sourcecode ;(

Stiletto wrote:

But yes, if you wanted to relicense a project to closed-source commercial project, you would need to get in touch with all contributors past and present for it to be "legally done".

Or, to be more precise, the contributors of 99% or so of the code, which would be much easier to do. Then you just rewrite all the missing little pieces.

Then you *just* rewrite... and a legal grey area that OpenSSL is now going to explore...