Thanks leileilol - that was a handy link. I think I will try to send this link around to the various parties that is using DOSBox as part of their products:

http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html

See if I get any reaction.

Edit: Another handy resource:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Edit 2: Steams seems to know how to work with 3rd party software, how to distribute source code and modifications:

http://www.valvesoftware.com/legal.htm

Yeah what is the problem here? As long as their distribution is an unmodified binary version of DOSBox that includes the GPL license information... it's totally legal. And frankly, if you are going to put out software for free, then at some point you have to come to terms with the fact that somebody is going to attempt to reuse your work to make some money.

I just honestly don't see the problem here though. I mean if they were selling just a DOS Emulator and nothing else, yeah that could be construed as an issue (but then again if the GPL information is included...) but they are selling licenses to old ID DOS software. That is really what you are buying. DOSBox is just being used as a mechanism to allow Joe Blow to run that software without issue.

gulikoza wrote:

...and you NEED to include the sources).

No you don't. You simply need to make the sources available on request if the binary is in fact complied using modified source. At the very least they should point anybody interested in obtaining said source to the DOSBox website for further guidance. I highly doubt the version of DOSBox they are using has been modified though. I mean it already runs all those games fine. They may have compiled their own version from the actual unmodified source though... can anybody here verify whether or not this is the case?

The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries.

darkgamorck wrote:

Yeah what is the problem here? As long as their distribution is an unmodified binary version of DOSBox that includes the GPL license information... it's totally legal.

That is the crucial point: What did they include, what did they not include, and what do it say in the EULA that I assume id Software has put in the package?

No one but the people that have bought the software (and id Software) will be able to answer that question.

It is also about that old saying: "Moral is good, double-moral is even better". I respect that game developers and publishers wants to be vigilant about preventing illegal copying, but I also expect them to be as vigilant when it comes to recognize the license terms of other peoples work.

gulikoza wrote:

The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries.

I think you are over-interpreting that gulikoza. It would be perfectly correct of me to distribute a binary DOSBox on-line with a written offer to ship the source on punch cards upon request.

Edit: Okay, maybe the punch-card method is not 100% okay:

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 […]
Show full quote

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 source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

I guess it would be a bit of a stretch to call punch-cards "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" (although I was pretty happy with punch-cards back in the days).

Or maybe the "form" refers to the character-set and the layout of the code? I had some friends back at the university who were hired to create a program for client. Upon the delivery, the client insisted that they also gave them the source code (in Pascal). My friends didn't agree, but eventually they gave in - after running the source through an obfuscater that removed all comments, renamed all variables and constants, every function, etc. The result did compile, and it did produce the exact same binary as delivered to the client, but other than that, it was completely useless.

That was taken from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Well let's keep in mind that you can download binary distributions of DOSBox without source code directly from the DOSBox site as well. So including source in the actual distribution is not a requirement. And if their source is unmodified... their should be no need for them to provide source at all. They can simply send any requestors back to this site.

Somebody here has bought it, so comparing binary sizes and date/time stamps should be enough to tell whether or not it's modified.

The dosbox distribution DOES include the source code, it consists of
all files listed at the sourceforge download page.

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? […]
Show full quote

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

These binaries are likely unmodified. Therefore everything would seem to be legal. There is nothing legally wrong with somebody download DOSBox from this site and selling it to people on their website.

Since when does it? The dmg of 0.71 I download contains no source. Neither does the 0.71 exe installer for Windows. Yes you offer the source as a seperate download... which is fine according to what I posted above. However one of the claims made in this thread stated that the source needed to be provided along with the actual binary as part of the package, which is decidedly not true.

The GPL files are missing. That's the whole point. They HAVE to be present
in every binary distribution.

The dmg of 0.71 I download contains no source

The dmg is not THE distribution but only part of it.

So the actual license text is missing? If so.... that sounds like they are fudging the rules then. I did not realize this.

It looks like I should've checked out the COPYING file before involving myself in this. Yeah that is the GPL license information. There you go. That is definitely a violation of the license then. I apologize for not understanding this factoid up front. Still beyond the fact that file is missing... the rest of it would appear to be legal.

The main part of the violation is that they removed all references to
dosbox including any statement that they use it and the GLP files.

The other part is in what form they have to provide the source code.
For direct redistribution of a dosbox release i suppose it'd be enough
to point to the dosbox homepage (which they didn't) but i don't know
if they have to provide the sources, too.

thread is merged somewhere else it seems

darkgamorck wrote:

Well let's keep in mind that you can download binary distributions of DOSBox without source code directly from the DOSBox site as well.

And? The "DOSBox site" is where the authors/copyright/license holders of DOSBox chooses to distribute their work. No license whatsoever, be it the GPLv2, GPLv3, a draconian IBM license, can restrict the authors in how they want to distribute their work. The GPL tells you what *you* can do with the work.

darkgamorck wrote:

So including source in the actual distribution is not a requirement. And if their source is unmodified... their should be no need for them to provide source at all. They can simply send any requestors back to this site.

You really should try to read and understand the GPLv2 before making such claims. As it is clearly stated in the section I quoted earlier (section 3c):

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.)

it should be noted that valve already has done the same thing to Quake when it was making Source Engine 'from scratch' by removing the required (by commercial license, NOT gpl license) 'uses technology from id software' acknowledgments in the headers and text files so yeah they have a history of covering up.