Someone has released an Android port of DOSBox on the Google Play store and is currently charging for it which, unless I'm misreading the content of GPL v2, is a violation of the license DOSBox is released under.
Can anything be done to address this?
Nope, selling is unfortunately ok. The seller only has to provide the sourcecode to whoever bought it from him. Sad but true ;(
And then when they do not respond to their customers' support requests, those customers come here asking for help.
and then those customers are surprised by the fact that we don't want to help them.
Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!
This is pretty ridiculous.
GPL v2 states that a fee can only be charged to cover the cost of distributing copies of a program or derived works. It costs nothing to distribute apps on Google Play, aside from the registration fee. The DOSBox Turbo dev is explicitly stating that he's charging a fee to cover the cost of development. Isn't this a GPL violation?
GPL v2 also states that if GPLed source code is included in an application, the developer must release the source, which the DOSBot guy is flat-out refusing to do.
I think that there is a case against this. Have any of the devs seriously looked into going after these d-bags?
Read the gpl again.
I did - that's why I'm asking.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy an […]
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Wouldn't this indicate that derived works can't be sold for profit? There's an allowance for verbatim copies to be distributed for a fee, to cover the cost of distribution, but that doesn't have anything to do with the cost of development.
As far as the DOSBot dev is concerned, that seems even more clear-cut:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the […]
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The DOSBot dev specifically states that he will not release the source for his project, even though it is a derived work of GPL v2 source code. The above seems to indicate that this stance is a violation of the license.
search the net if you don't believe me. He *has* to hand out the source "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution" to anyone he sold the program to but not to anyone requesting it. Or even search this forum. It's not the first time someone cashes in on DOSBox.
I get that he has to - that doesn't mean that he will. The DOSBot guy explicitly says that he won't release his source.
I know that this isn't the first time someone has profited off of the DOSBox's devs' hard work. Doesn't make it any more okay, though.
Does the fee allowance in GPL v2 provide for charging for time/effort? Seems to me that it's about the cost of distributing the software, not the cost of developing it. If that's the case, then there technically should never be a fee to download DOSBox from the Google Play store, since it costs the dev nothing to distribute it via that medium.
Read this FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Does … heGPLAllowMoney
The part about the fee not being allowed to be much is *just* for getting the source code to the customer, NOT about selling the program to begin with.
And no, it's not all right that people come and charge money for free software. But the GPL allows it and when developers don't want that they should use a different license. The Dosbox devs wish they had chosen a different license, AFAIK.
Is there anything stopping them from finding a better license and releasing the next major version release under that license?
Sorry if that's a stupid question...
I just checked dosbox on Google play store.
aDosbox is free and the source is available.
DosBox Turbo is at $49 (Canadian fund).
It's very expensive for covering the costs of distributing copies. I think he makes profits for it.
By the way, how to know if someone charges prices for covering Dosbox or making money? Could be possible to know that?
Nikiniki, come on, read the last post of mine. The covering of the costs is for handing out the source. NOT selling the program. He could charge 10.000 Dollars and it would still be legal.
Interestingly enough, the developer of DOSBox Turbo has included anti-copying code to check for a valid license.
How is that compatible with GPL v2?
how is it not?
Indeed - it appears that v2 has nothing regarding DRM, and v3 allows for it but waives legal right to pursue anyone who circumvents it.
The more I've learned about GPL, the more weak it seems. There is very little in place to protect developers. I'm disappointed - but at the same time am grateful that the original DOSBox devs are willing to continue supporting and developing this project, even though others are profiting so much off their work.
Maybe they should just release the next version as a shareware app for like $10 or some token sum WITHOUT the source code then nobody else can use it or charge for it at all without subjecting themselves to criminal penalties. If someone wants to make a derivative work, then they can pay a reasonable license fee to the original devs and then they can see the source. DOSBox is well worth paying a reasonable shareware fee for.
I agree. While I'm a cheapskate who doesn't really want to pay $4 for an Android port, it pisses me off even more that the guy is making money off someone else's work. The least he could do is share the fruit of his not-so-laborious efforts with the guys who made his port possible.
Maybe they should just release the next version as a shareware app for like $10 or some token sum WITHOUT the source code then nobody else can use it or charge for it at all without subjecting themselves to criminal penalties.
As long as the license is still GPL anyone who buys it is entitled to the source and can then use it under the terms of the GPL.
Changing the license from GPL is not as easy since parts of the code are probably from other GPL projects...
What a douche bag
