Chaos wrote:I see your point. even though in your scenario it's a switch being added to working system. but here it's dosbox being added to a working XP system.
And the Moon is circling the Earth (random comment while we are stating the obvious). Yes, you added DOSBox to a working system, but an application should not be able to create random changes to your desktop.
An PC operating system, and a router firmware, should protect itself against internal failures when presented with errornous external data. If DOSBox (or one of its many library routines like SDL, MSVCRT, ...) makes a call to DirectX, or to some GUI component responsible for the desktop, with errornous data, the operating system should throw up an exception and not blindly go ahead and perform the requested operation and corrupt its own data.
Chaos wrote:Ouch... had you used GNU GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 you would have been protected against that. as GPLv3 would have required them to make all software bundled together with the GPLv3 licensed software free also.
Really Chaos, you should limit yourself to networking, because everytime you open your mouth here, you look even more a fool. Please check the date when Sierra decided to package DOSBox with their games. Then check the date when GPLv3 was finalized. And then explain to us how GPLv3 could have been used.
Secondly, your understanding of how the GPL works is flawed if you think that bundling proprietary with GPL'ed software require all the code to be made free.
DOSBox 60 seconds guide | How to ask questions
_________________
Lenovo M58p | Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz | Radeon R7 240 | LG HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH40N | Fedora 32