The page you linked to says the source can be obtained if you pay 0.38euro. That is allowed by the GPL2, and there wouldn't be anything stopping you from copying it again under the GPL2, if they didn't strip the license out and say it is under something else. So if they are using dosbox GPL2 code, and still acknowledge the license and provide the source this way, then it is not infringing even if you can't download the latest version straight from sourceforge. I am only stating this based on GPL2 only and if there is any other licensing or trademarks I did not look further.

You can pay 0.38 EUR to get the source up to version 2017.08.01. You can't get the source for the latest one, even if you pay.

Well maybe the page is not up to date. It clearly claims it is derived from dosbox and source code being shared implies it is GPL. But otherwise hides stating the license. The register page is equally confusing, but it might not have any connection to the license. Have you asked if you can get the 2022 source?

> You can pay 0.38 EUR to get the source

More like "you're forced to 'donate' €0.38", netting the author €0.01 of profit. Which, as I understand it, while miniscule, does appear to go against the GPL - not sure whether camouflaging it as a "donation" would save his ass in court. I also noticed that all the files taken from DOSbox had their boilerplate license notices removed but I don't know whether you're allowed to do that or not, as long as the license itself doesn't change (or only to a later GPL version).

Overall - I like the large font rendering implemented in this project (Truetype? Prerendered BIOS font replacement?) but the license handling seems iffy to me so I'll stay away.

You are not allowed to remove boilerplates. They are there for a reason.

Apart from the screwy way to use paypal to perform the transaction, the GPL does allow charging for the cost to deliver the source code. If he pulled down the code from third party sites and only made it available at his chosen site he runs, I would not know what it might cost him. So I don't see it's worth the time to argue with him over 0.01 euro per copy. Now if instead he no longer provides source and charges 50 euro to register to remove the nag screen, which is implied on another page on his site, and is still using dosbox code, then there is a case to be made. But you'd have to make the determination by looking at the version he is now offering.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-04, 04:22:

and is still using dosbox code

This would force the source and binaries of vDOS to be distributed under the terms of the GPL v2, according to section 2b. In-house use is still OK, though, because the GPL restrictions only apply if you distribute the program.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-04, 04:22:

So I don't see it's worth the time to argue with him over 0.01 euro per copy.

Yes, this seems to comply with section 3b of the GPL.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-04, 04:22:

Now if instead he no longer provides source

This would violate the GPL, as it does not comply with section 3 at all.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-04, 04:22:

and charges 50 euro to register to remove the nag screen,

This is fine, according to the book. No clause in the GPL forbids that he adds nag screens to the software. You are free to add/remove any feature you want (maybe except removing the display of copyright notices). But at the same time, as the resulting product is to be distributed under the GPL (as already established), the user is entitled to get the source code for no more than the physical cost of the transfer (which is likely also true, but only for the old version). The source code itself has also to be licensed under the GPL, so the user has to be allowed to modify the software by removing the nag screen and re-publish this as forked version, again under the GPL. I don't think the author of vDOS would be happy about that, though.

There is no provision in the GPL that forbids the author to charge 50€ for the service to disable the nag screen, the idea being that this is solved by the market: Either the price is fair, or the user can hire an independent software developer for a reasonable price to adapt the software to your needs (i.e. remove the nag screen). If there are any license issues preventing the user to have an independent software developer remove the nag screen, the distribution of a work derived from a GPL product was not permitted in the beginning.

mkarcher wrote on 2023-02-04, 07:54:

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-04, 04:22:

and charges 50 euro to register to remove the nag screen,

This is fine, according to the book. No clause in the GPL forbids that he adds nag screens to the software.

I did not claim that adding a nag screen violated the GPL. You broke my sentence apart, where there were "ands" tying the sentence together logically to the beginning and end of the sentence where a violation starts with not providing a method to obtain the source and being based on dosbox. I was just referring to the registration page that it does not provide proof on GPL compliance. The registration page and lack of mention of version 2022 source makes the vDos distribution not clear whether he is now prohibiting obtaining the source to a GPL program or removed all dosbox code. So to resolve the issue, someone just needs to determine if the latest version is based on dosbox and ask for the latest source code.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-03, 22:47:

Well maybe the page is not up to date. It clearly claims it is derived from dosbox and source code being shared implies it is GPL. But otherwise hides stating the license. The register page is equally confusing, but it might not have any connection to the license. Have you asked if you can get the 2022 source?

Yes, I've asked. Source for 2022.05.01 is not available. The license file in the source of 2017.08.01 is GPL2.

Was there any further resolution to this issue? I would consider supporting the author's work but not if he is trying to profit off of DOSBOX's work and contrary to the license terms.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-02-04, 04:22:

You are not allowed to remove boilerplates. They are there for a reason.

Certain open source licenses indeed have explicit mentions that the license/copyright boilerplate must be there, preferably intact, as one of the terms of the license.

Shadow Lord wrote on 2023-07-05, 23:32:

Was there any further resolution to this issue? I would consider supporting the author's work but not if he is trying to profit off of DOSBOX's work and contrary to the license terms.

Good that I happened to have found this thread (thanks to the one who bumped it to the active thread list). I once saw about vDos and was uncertain. Now I think I could expect what functionality it would offer.

Still... it doesn't change the fact that the UI and UX of Windows has changed too much that old Windows apps will never really work the way it was supposed to (DOS was long out-of-question thanks to x64). Wrappers exist but often need to be tweaked at a per-software basis... Not to mention drivers for the hardware you use limit what Windows version you could run... Sadly most recent hardware don't offer pre-Win10 drivers anymore.