Reply 40 of 61, by Joey_sw
- Rank
- Oldbie
if you just using your own dosbox build privately without ever allowing any other accessing into it, You're not required to tell anyone that you're looking at GPL code.
-fffuuu
if you just using your own dosbox build privately without ever allowing any other accessing into it, You're not required to tell anyone that you're looking at GPL code.
-fffuuu
Yup, no one would be able to tell on you. Or as long as you keep yourself only known by this forum name you could even hand in patches for the other problems you seein dosbox.
So, get on it. No more wasting time arguing here. It's better spent coding.
wrote:By the way: the shell window in 64-bit Windows is just that: a shell window but not a "DOS box." It doesn't emulate DOS.
x64 dropped the NTVDM and COMMAND.EXE because of its inability to run 16-bit code. x86 XP included both COMMAND.EXE and CMD.EXE. CMD is not a DOS emulator. COMMAND.EXE used NTVDM, but was still not DOS. Even so, DOSBox does not try to emulate a Windows command prompt nor a Win 3x or 9x "DOS box", but a PC with just DOS loaded. As far as running games in a 3x or 9x DOS box, there were many games that did not like anything other than pure DOS. NTVDM has even worse compatibility problems. Not that a text adventure fan would necessarily notice with the low demands of such games.
There have been requests a number of times for various features for DOSBox that are not required for games. These are rarely, if ever added, even when a patch for the feature was written. Adding unneeded complexity can break game compatibility. Again, you may find what you want convenient, but it is not needed. Several have suggested one of the z-machine emulators. If you really are a programmer, why not write your own program to do what you want?
wrote:DOSBox does have a shell, so one would think it could maintain a scrollback buffer within the display window just like cmd.exe does
No, DOSBox has a CLI that runs in its virtual environment.
The window that you see when DOSBox launches is not a character console like a System.Console or cmd or PowerShell session.
The DOSBox window is an SDL Window, its contents are arbitrary graphics, the DOSBox CLI just makes it look kinda like it's a console window. But it isn't. For real.
VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread
wrote:if you just using your own dosbox build privately without ever allowing any other accessing into it, You're not required to tell anyone that you're looking at GPL code.
He is referring to commercial code that he writes.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Still true, when he tells no one that he looks at gpl code how can they prove it? Seems like a hell of his own making
wrote:Still true, when he tells no one that he looks at gpl code how can they prove it? Seems like a hell of his own making
You mean he should lie? Or just steal the code? As I recall, there has been concern in the past over DOSBox getting appropriated.
Some people take their ethical obligations sincerely.
And what if they were able to prove it? It would indeed be a hell of his own making. He is thinking ahead and does not want to create that hell.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
What does it have to do with stealing? Anyone can go and take Dosbox source, ONLY when you put your changes online will you have to obey the GPL.
If he wants to change dosbox for his own personal entertainment there is no stealing.
If he really wants to limit his future time to his company's code.. That would be programmers hell IMO
To be honest...it does sound like he wants the feature for whatever reason other than games. As for programmer's hell...well..most contracts do include certain clauses...thing is, as Dominus said, if he keeps said changes to himself...there's probably no harm...unless he's always using a "work" machine; I hope he isn't.
Then there's also the issue of solving a text adventure by copy-pasting, if that really is the case...sounds like a boring game to me that way, but what do I know?
I do not know that the poster's issue has really been considered so let me give an example situation.
Jo(e) Programmer is a commercial programmer among other things. J likes DOSBox, but thinks that it could use some more features. J investigates the matter, and in the process, goes through a lot of DOSBox source code. Some of this code can be applied outside of DOSBox. (It would be very surprising to me if none of the DOSBox code had outside application.)
If J then uses some of this knowledge gleaned from DOSBox source code on a piece of commercial software (CS) that he is working on, what happens?
If CS then has to have its source released, this is the contamination that the poster was mentioning. It could get really messy if J does not own CS or is not the only owner.
If not, great. Ideas got borrowed a lot.
Some Open Source licences allow use of code, some do not. It is a can of worms. I can understand why some people would prefer to avoid Open Source source code for that reason.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene, why would CS have its sources released? As long as it is closed source no one would ever know whether the programer used some open source. And yes, as Vile writes even though he looks he dorsn't need to use dosbox source. I'd expect a good programer to be able of this.
But the OP vanished anyway...
wrote:wrote:If J then uses some of this knowledge gleaned from DOSBox source code on a piece of commercial software (CS) that he is working on, what happens?
ah yes, but that is up to J -- looking at code != using it.
Sure, but what about later? J has to code something and thinks about it and comes up with a solution. What if the solution is very close to DOSBox code?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:Gene, why would CS have its sources released? As long as it is closed source no one would ever know whether the programer used some open source. And yes, as Vile writes even though he looks he dorsn't need to use dosbox source. I'd expect a good programer to be able of this.
But the OP vanished anyway...
It is not even the case that J has necessarily used Open Source code. J might have coded a feature the same way whether he had looked at the DOSBox source code or not, but just the intimation might scare away a potential deal. Suppose J's company is looking to sell CS. The prospect is doing due diligence. They are going to want to be sure about the software ownership and related status. If they find out later that some code in CS strongly resembles Open Source source code, it could get messy.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
You still skirt around the most important part: HOW would they find out? Not to mention that dosbox code is very specific tied to the emuulation of hardware and interfacing with SDL. Not many CS go near that...
wrote:You still skirt around the most important part: HOW would they find out? Not to mention that dosbox code is very specific tied to the emuulation of hardware and interfacing with SDL. Not many CS go near that...
No, the most important part is whether I am conducting myself in an ethical manner. Just because it is unlikely for someone to get caught doing or having done something does not make the thing acceptable to do.
I do not skirt your point; I ignore it. It would be unethical behaviour. It would create a legal liability. I prefer not to live my life hoping people do not find me out. There are other people who feel the same.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
First it's not about you, second a good programmer should be able to circumvent it.
And also why NOW come with ethical stuff when you first only wrote about legal stuff. Make up your mind and don't change course in the discussion.
Also ignoring the other points... Yeah...
wrote:First it's not about you, second a good programmer should be able to circumvent it.
And also why NOW come with ethical stuff when you first only wrote about legal stuff. Make up your mind and don't change course in the discussion.
Also ignoring the other points... Yeah...
Maybe. And some people do not want to take that risk.
Why ethical now? Well, it always was. I am simply continuing. Part of ethical behaviour is generally following reasonable laws.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
CS doesn't really follow reasonable laws, but that's another issue.
printf("hello, world");
could easily be changed to
printf("Closed source: you will burn in hell, several times, if you try to reverse engineer this");
Since I declare the above line open source (under GPL v3), now no one can use it for their closed source program, even if it does something a lot of programs do: print a text line on the screen?
The most worrisome clause I'd find in a contract is about invention: a lot of contracts state that whatever you invent while working under a company is that enterprise's property, GPL is supposed to prevent that problem if working on improving an existing program...in theory. (See Richard M. Stallman - Free Software, Free Society).
Following that (wrong) line of thought...no programs could ever be made...people learn to program, I think, mostly using either of these two resources (or both): studying books or taking courses.
Those books and courses include a lot of sample code (so you can learn) that you will, eventually, repeat...
Say you want to make a quicksort. The algorithm is mostly the same, with variations and quirks, but the central idea is the same: you got it from a book or a teacher, yet you use it...your code has been polluted, if following the idea that looking at other code screws you.
There's another way people can learn: looking at the code itself (one of the benefits of free software)...and they will repeat a number of things learned. Same reasoning applies.
wrote:CS doesn't really follow reasonable laws, but that's another issue. […]
CS doesn't really follow reasonable laws, but that's another issue.
printf("hello, world");
could easily be changed to
printf("Closed source: you will burn in hell, several times, if you try to reverse engineer this");
Since I declare the above line open source (under GPL v3), now no one can use it for their closed source program, even if it does something a lot of programs do: print a text line on the screen?
Strawman much?
Something that a competent person in a field could think up on his own fairly readily would not be protected. An implementation of an algorithm probably fits here.
The most worrisome clause I'd find in a contract is about invention: a lot of contracts state that whatever you invent while working under a company is that enterprise's property, GPL is supposed to prevent that problem if working on improving an existing program...in theory. (See Richard M. Stallman - Free Software, Free Society).
I agree with you on that. That is a reprehensible clause.
Following that (wrong) line of thought...no programs could ever be made...people learn to program, I think, mostly using either of these two resources (or both): studying books or taking courses.
Those books and courses include a lot of sample code (so you can learn) that you will, eventually, repeat...
And that is their purpose. To then argue that no one could use it is ludicrous.
Say you want to make a quicksort. The algorithm is mostly the same, with variations and quirks, but the central idea is the same: you got it from a book or a teacher, yet you use it...your code has been polluted, if following the idea that looking at other code screws you.
Again, it is intended for use.
There's another way people can learn: looking at the code itself (one of the benefits of free software)...and they will repeat a number of things learned. Same reasoning applies.
Looking at other code that has limitations on use could cause you issues with code that you write.
I have posted code before on the Net. I would have no problem with it being used. That is why I posted it, but not all code is meant for that.
If someone develops an app or other significant amount of code and someone else copies it, yes, there might well be a copyright violation. Some people want to avoid that hassle. That last sentence is true whether you feel that way yourself.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko