don't touch it then

What is the point of GPL ?
Can you elaborate it bit deeper ?

2xsai and friends are already in DOSBox, so no need to add them.

With regards to the license. I am sorry, It is not up for discussion.

Except not so easy to enable ?
Any GUI coming soon ? 😀
How many users have read configuration manual ? 😀

Suggest locking the thread. 😀

Nah, it's funny

Why would it need loosening up? GPL is pretty lax, though truth be told, I like the BSD license better. 😉

What's that point of GUI? It's called DOSBox, not Windowsbox.

What's the problem with GPL?

from experience, the GPL is a good diva filter, i'd say.... especially if it's v2

also those other emulators with such filters are GPL too, and adding filters doesn't mean 'improvement'. It doesn't do DOS emulation any more accurately

GPL keeps this project healthy by being irrevocably open source. It would suck if it were suddenly closed for a rather dated screen filter then marketed on that in some app store like it's the second coming of dos gaming

GPL prevernts to create mixtures of dosbox, e.g. embedding or integrating it's code somewhere.
I would even consider LGPL, but not GPL, it forces to publish all source codes of your development project.

Even if parts of dosbox are GPL licensed, I would like to see which ones of them. May be I'll simply chop them off, as non-needed.
(get better MIT alternative, or even code by myself).

I don't believe how much people are trying actually to resist againt this crappy license.
Sorry, unfortunately I as a developer understand that development costs, and not interested in just giving up my effort for free. (e.g. get a credits at least).

Dosbox as a whole is GPLed not parts. If you don't want to add something for free to a project that is a free project then I suggest you go elsewhere.
GPL nicely weeds out those types of develeopers that cannot share or appreciate others hard work that got into a project for love of the project...

Btw, maybe you should read up on the GPL since your beginning statements are not true.

And also, AFAIK, some Dosbox developers would actually like to change the license but with the code being done by many people and borrowing from other projects, it's not gonna happen (reason is not the Diva reasons you bring but the many people SELLING variations of Dosbox which the GPL permits)...

GPL is such offensive license, but now is 2014 - I don't understand why people still use it ?

Would it be wiser to specify whatever you need from license and make your own license for that ?
Like you said - you're afraid of dosbox selling - why not to specify - before you make commercial application from dosbox, you need to have written agreement with dosbox developers.

Now it looks like you're afraid of something , but you're not brave enough to specify what you're afraid of and just trying to hide behind a lot of crappy legacy text which no one actually understands.

Btw - GPL license does protect dosbox code, but it does not restrict of selling commercial dosbox. For example - if I'll take source codes for dosbox, make my own variation and start to sell it - it's ok.
You can request my own source code of dosbox, and I must provide it to you - but there is nothing specified about delivery costs or delivery time.

You request new dosbox source code from me , and I will reply to you that I'm afraid of competitors (he he) and won't send you that one by e-mail. And since I'm leaving in long distance - you will need to pay off my travelling expenses for delivering you dosbox source codes. (Machine fuel price for driving to post office, postage costs and so on...). Of course I will send you my most expensive way, and will probably forget important parts of source code to be included. Since I'm really busy guy you will receive within one year that project, and most probably I will have another major version already deployed.

Good luck with fighting about license terms and conditions and hiring more lawyers.

You don't seem to understand that you don't need to school us about GPL. We have a much better understanding of it than you.
Also, please read up on what needs to be done when you want to switch licenses, when the code was written by many people and is based on other GPL source.
It's impossible...

> It's impossible...

What is exactly ?
Send mail to all - we are switching license type, if you disagree please reply to this mail within one month with your comments, otherwise we consider you to agree to new license type.

And third party could be checked through as well.

I've asked similar thing about some third part tool, and they also disagreed. But when I've tried to ask some change to their tool, it also hang up in air. I think software development should be driven by someone otherwise development stops just there.

Your proposal of switching license is not legally possible. "Reply by x days or we consider you approve" is not gonna work legally. And with third party code the people taht need to approve multiplies (since that code could be based on yet another code) and if only one doesn't agree than that's it.
And all this hassle for something the devs don't really want.
For you? Right now we only know that you dislike free code and that you can glance at the GPL...

So, your license discussion is dead. I repeat myself but if you can't add code to a GPL project than you need to spend your time elsewhere. This discussion is dead, dead dead, dead...
Qbix, the lead dev, already told you in the beginning and now the discussion has lost its funny side as well.