That canadacow is putting this in the public domain, which is no license at all, it's inconsequential. Public domain means anyone can do anything with the code. Someone can take a copy and go closed source for profit, license it as GPL, whatever.

As for the GPL, the mixing of different licensed code isn't some obscure miniscule point of contention Nicht Sehr Gut. It's a prominately declared boundary of the license. And the license essentially says if you use our code/project, we get to use yours in kind. And the guys who wrote dosbox, vdmsound and bochs all chose this license. So unless you are up to writing your own pc emulator; if you use theirs, they want you to follow the guidelines for using their project.

You know canadacow, it's your baby, and I only contributed small snippits, but when someone contributes to your project, and then you repeatedly say your solo, well, let's just say it makes me question the time I spent scowering over your code.

well, let's just say it makes me question the time I spent scowering over your code.

Perhaps a standard "CREDITS" file/section is in order? 😀

Seems like I've pissed off a lot of people today. Anyway, I've been really busy hence my pissy answers. On the other hand, I do plan to make my code available via CVS on sourceforge. This will take some work because I have to include the driver core, the dosbox sound module and the MT-32 emulator core together and somehow keep it organized and intuitive. Thanks for your help ih8registrations. I still feel like this is a one man show. I've been hoping someone would have pointed me in the right direction for the major stuff, like tuning reverb effects and filter parameters. That's where I still want the most help. Thanks for your help though. Hopefully when I post the stuff in the CVS it'll be easier for us to collaborate.

I would ignore those licensing maniacs... 😀 I doubt anybody from DOSBOX developers etc. would be so picky about it.
Anyway, on which version is your DOSBOX version based (0.58 ?). I just hoped to try Ultima 7 (which works in current CVS, but unfortunately not in your binary).
Otherwise I tried it in Unlimited Adventures and it worked (sounded differently than normal Soundblaster). Unfortunately I have never ever come close to MT-32 so I cannot tell how it should sound.
Anyway go on with your work and ignore these licensing morons (Roland can be problem, but I doubt there is any danger QBIX would sue you 😀 😀 😀 ).

Mirek

I would ignore those licensing maniacs... 😀 I doubt anybody from DOSBOX developers etc. would be so picky about it.

Really? Are you volunteering to contact them about it and ask for an exemption? Or are you willing to take up the legal defense in the case of a licensing dispute?

Anyway go on with your work and ignore these licensing morons (Roland can be problem, but I doubt there is any danger QBIX would sue you).

I'm sorry, but if anyone is a moron here, it is those who encourage canadacow to ignore the license of other software, on the grounds of baseless opinions like "I doubt they would care" or "The Dosbox guys are nice". How many useful projects have been destroyed over the years due to unforeseen licensing issues? In my opinion, too many.
That is the only reason I bring it up, to save potential trouble down the road. This argument is pointless anyway; all canadacow has to do is advertise the availablity of the source code and provide it to people who ask. It's not like this is some monumental issue to get all worked up over.

runderwo wrote:

I'm sorry, but if anyone is a moron here, it is those who encourage canadacow to ignore the license of other software, on the grounds of baseless opinions like "I doubt they would care" or "The Dosbox guys are nice".

Yes, I'm pretty sure they are nice. I've spoken with Harekiet
Qbix and they know what I'm doing. This also isn't the first time I've done some additional coding for DosBox. See my Tandy implementation, serial port over TCP emulator, and my accurate Game Blaster implementation (from MAME). If either of the main DosBox developers have a problem with what I'm doing, they know where to find me.

Anyway, lets all remember that this project is for fun. Lets not get at each other's throats. There's no money involved here, and the only reason I haven't posted the source is because I haven't had time.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by runderwo What was the point? Should copyright law go away?

*long pause*
No, that wasn't the point...at all. You are "reading into" what I have typed. There are no hidden implications or suggestions. It is quite straight-forward.

I consider what canadacow has had to put up with from the beginning: the people who mocked his emulation from the start (apparently expecting it to sound just like a MT32 on the very first release), all the people claimed that they knew the proper way to develop the project and insisting canadacow should follow their lead, I consider the time and effort that must go into coding such a project (I blew off programming after a disastrous dabbling with COBOL), that he will receive no financial benefit from it, the legal-wrangling he's had with Roland, then add on top of all that the knowledge that he could get fried because he forgot to remove some GPL references in his headers...THAT is why I'm no longer surprised that coders bail on their projects.

Personally, I would've bailed a good while back...

runderwo, most of the projects around here collaborate quite closely with the others. ScummVM, DOSBox, VDMSound, MT32Emu, GliDOS... although they're all separate and accomplish different things, where they overlap they help each-other out as much as they can. Please avoid bugging the developers, we need them. 😀

If canadacow had posted what he just did when the question was first raised, there would have been nothing further to discuss. Unfortunately, from anyone outside looking in, it could have appeared to be a clear cut case of someone blatantly ignoring a software license. I'm glad it's not.

Nicht Sehr Gut, sorry that I misrepresented your opinion. There are too many people that go around "abandonwarez" circles that think copyright is some awful thing that just needs to be thrown out with the bathwater. Notwithstanding the fact that current copyright terms are arguably unconstitutional, it's a difficult thing to swallow over and over again. Obviously, that's not the claim you were making, and I apologize for my jerking knee.

I don't know about pissed, leery is what I would say. Part of the skepticism has been from you saying it's too much work to release the code when the dosbox source was two files. The existing instructions were adequate, and a note that the compile only having been tested in windows would suffice. If it doesn't compile on a platform, say linux, if the source were available, someone could help and get it to compile for you, like I did before. It seems to me, it took more time and effort to post about why it couldn't be done. I felt the same way about trying to get you to describe how you got clean samples. More time and effort spent arguing why not than would be to just describe what you did. Obviously, people can't help if they can't see or know the problem. Not releasing until everything is ready is a self fullfilling prophecy of doing it alone.

Originally posted by runderwo There are too many people that go around "abandonwarez" circles that think copyright is some awful thing that just needs to be thrown out with the bathwater. Notwithstanding the fact that current copyright terms are arguably unconstitutional, it's a difficult thing to swallow over and over again.

*heh* Just place "copyright" into Quick Search at the top of the page and you'll find several past discussions on this.

I still think the #1 classic is the CD version of LOOM, where the copyright was (apparently) split between LucasArts and Software Toolworks.

Nicht Sehr Gut, canadacow isn't getting fried. I didn't demand he release his source; I said to consider changing his license to something else if he wasn't going to follow the GPL and follow it when using other people's projects that are GPL. I also pointed out how his initial code is GPL'd in more than one way, but also noted that it's a non issue because the way public domain works.
I understand where you're coming from, but that just isn't the case in this instance.

ih8registrations, I think the best thing to do at this point is to drop the matter until canadacow has actually had time to consider it. We've all put in our 2 cents (and then some) on the matter. 😀

Heh.. anyway, here's some good news. Tomorrow I'll be posting a non-alpha version of the DosBox MT-32 emulator. The reverb has been revamped and I've also spent a great deal of time on the tuning (it's a heck of a lot closer than its ever been!). Anyway, be looking for that tomorrow!

First, I will justify this post by saying: Great, great that canadcow puts so much work into this project, which gives a gaming veteran (me, started in 1987 with Pacman) the chance to listen to his beloved old games (above all else Wing Commander).

Second, I cannot withstand to comment on this:

There are too many people that go around "abandonwarez" circles that think copyright is some awful thing that just needs to be thrown out with the bathwater. Notwithstanding the fact that current copyright terms are arguably unconstitutional, it's a difficult thing to swallow over and over again. Obviously, that's not the claim you were making, and I apologize for my jerking knee.

I don't get it, man. Why are emotions always heating up when the talk is about abandonware. There are so many good sites where you see people care about old games and their developers. Why should I not download a game I cannot get otherwise? For you people in the US, Lucasarts adventures may still be available, but they simply don't sell them in Europe. Does anyone really think I'd import a game which I just want to look at again for some hours? Besides, I think the revenue Lucasarts can make with their adventures before 1994 is negligible for such a successful games company. Why don't they simply let us download their classic games for free, so we can continue to worship Ron Gilbert? Why does every company hold on to their copyright even if they can't make a single dollar with it? Why doesn't Roland simply give canadcow a license for his project (which they can't - I know)? Why does greed rule our planet? Well, I think I should stop here or someone will accuse me of communistic thoughts.

runderwo wrote:

Really? Are you volunteering to contact them about it and ask for an exemption? Or are you willing to take up the legal defense in the case of a licensing dispute?
I'm sorry, but if anyone is a moron here, it is those who encourage canadacow to ignore the license of other software, on the grounds of baseless opinions like "I doubt they would care" or "The Dosbox guys are nice". How many useful projects have been destroyed over the years due to unforeseen licensing issues? In my opinion, too many.

Ok, I will explain a bit my relation to DOSBOX project. It is not like I just talk about something which I have nothing to do with. I am one of betatesters (CANADACOW is betatester as well) since last October. I am probably second one in number of posts on DOSBOX beta board (I do not mean VOGONS, it is a speciall closed forum).
I even occasionaly mail with Peter (QBIX). I admit I have never ever talked with him about licensing. But from what I know I *guess* there will not be any problem from their side.
The main reason why CANADACOW's work was not integrated yet is the legal dispute with Roland.
Emulation scene is free scene where the things are reused (e.g. DOSBOX contains some things from MAME). I think that developers would be against using their code in commerciall products, but CANADACOW's work is different. He is making it for free and really trying to get the things solved with Roland.
I am afraid that if he is bugged too much with these license problems it can come to the situation where he just says: "I am fed up with it. I drop the project". I sincerely hope he will not do that.

Mirek

I don't get it, man. Why are emotions always heating up when the talk is about abandonware. There are so many good sites where you see people care about old games and their developers. Why should I not download a game I cannot get otherwise?

That's not the issue I was citing. (I'm all for ignoring extended >14yr copyright, when it can be justified.) The problem is when people use abandonware as a justification for ignoring copyright on *everything*, including copying "abandonware" from last year, and freely copying source code under other licenses into one's own work. As a software developer and musician, this attitude bothers me. Part of the motivation for working on projects is being secure that one's work will be protected. If people ignore that, sure, you could probably sue them, but in all honesty it's easier just to quit producing altogether.
At least for my part, that's why my knee jerks when I think someone is talking about "copyright==bad==justified in ignoring it". An opinion that would be acceptable to me is "copyright==too long==justified in ignoring it past a certain threshold". Which probably doesn't disagree with yours too much.

CANADACOW's work is different. He is making it for free and really trying to get the things solved with Roland.
I am afraid that if he is bugged too much with these license problems it can come to the situation where he just says: "I am fed up with it. I drop the project". I sincerely hope he will not do that.

I agree. I'm glad enough attention was brought to the question that it was finally answered for everyone.

runderwo wrote:

That's not the issue I was citing. (I'm all for ignoring extended >14yr copyright, when it can be justified.) An opinion that would be acceptable to me is "copyright==too long==justified in ignoring it past a certain threshold". Which probably doesn't disagree with yours too much.

Surprisingly, that's not the issue with the Roland copyright. The issue is that the law changed in 1989. Anything produced before that date had to be explicitly copyrighted (c) symbol and everything in order for it to be copyrighted. Anything lacking such a symbol fell into the Public Domain in 1994 if actions were not taken to correctly register such works (as Roland failed to do). Now, any original work produced is automatically copyrighted. This was not the case before 1989 and the law as such still applies to works produced before 1989.