i saw this awhile back and now i remember that dosbox is free so why do i see it up on the google play tore here https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id … fishstix.dosbox is it not suppose to be free?
There is a free version https://sites.google.com/site/dosboxfree/home
Open source is often said to be "free as in speech, not free as in beer", the various licences impose greater or lesser demands in relation to source, but generally few conditions on a compiled result.
i know there is a free version but from what i understand dosbox in any form can't be sold now if the screes showed dosbox turbo and not just dosbox i would be fine.
You are free to download DOSBox source code, you are free to compile it and you are free to sell it, provided you comply with DOSBox license, which among other things mean you need to provide the source code to your customers and they are free to compile it and sell it or release it as free.
wrote:You are free to download DOSBox source code, you are free to compile it and you are free to sell it, provided you comply with DOSBox license, which among other things mean you need to provide the source code to your customers and they are free to compile it and sell it or release it as free.
A common misconception with GPL software is that you "can't sell it", which isn't true, however buying something that was GPL on Google Play doesn't provide you with the source code either, so technically any purchase from an online digital store (including steam) violates the GPL license, since the source code isn't included. That said, DOSBOX isn't disguised when it's included with Steam games and it's always the vanilla version acquired from the dosbox website, so there's no real issue. Steam versions of DOSBOX games usually just have a launcher program, that's it.
App stores like iOS, Google and Microsoft require building in code in the tool chain for signing it, thus you can't redistribute the build environment, thus the GPL license is violated. For the most part, this is why there is always a lot of whine about GPL violations, especially on ARM cpu devices that aren't in the spirit of the license because you can't just download the source without the build tools and still produce the same binary.
It's a common misconception that when you buy a GPLed software the download has to come with the source. It doesn't. The seller has to provide you with the source when you ask for it.
The other stuff you write is kind of true, the problem with the Apple store is the copy-left, a buyer can't pass on the binary he downloaded because of the DRM.
AND the seller or Apple/Google/MS add their own license on "top" of the GPL and that is violating the GPL, too (who is doing the license violation in this case is debatable and I think is not yet clear).
But neither cpu devices or build tools are the problem or even part of it. The seller has to provide the source but not the build tools nor does the GPL make you provide a way to produce the same binary that you bought.
Edit: source and way better explanation than mine https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-abou … gpl-enforcement
If you disagree, please provide a source for buildtools/chain and or cpu device being a problem with GPL
