• You can not steal something that is free 😀
• The buyer is certainly entitled to demanding exclusive copyright to parts of the deliverables - that is the modifications (patches) that the coder produces. But the buyer can most definitely not receive exclusive copyright to the final product = the MacOSX executable s/he so dearly seeks - and the U.S. Copyright law will ensure that it will never happen.
• 3b is to flexible that I don't see a problem as long as the seller/coder makes sure to inform the buyer that 99.95% of the deliverable is copyrighted by the famous DOSBox Team (or whoever they might have handed over the rights to).
• Everyone is free to fork the code and make it proprietary. As long as they keep the resulting product internal. The second they start distributing the code, then they are in deep poo-poo.

For your last point actually, they have to make the code availlable to all the users of the binaries, who are free to disseminate it as they wish.

Zorbid wrote:

For your last point actually, they have to make the code availlable to all the users of the binaries, who are free to disseminate it as they wish.

No - or at least it depends on who/what "they" are. A company can very well take a free, open-source, GPL-protected product and adapt it for their internal need, and distribute it to all their employees for internal use without having to share their adaptations in any way, shape or form.

The only problem might be in the definition of "internal use". If say a subsidiary of a company in Japan makes such an adaptation, will it still be internal use if the program is distributed to a sister-company in Germany?

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but AFAIK, no provision of the GPL makes a distinction between public or private distribution. If an employee is given a copy of the executable of a free program, by the GPL, he's entitled to get and distribute it's source (and get fired ;-).

Edit : here is the relevant part of the FAQ. Replace "friend" with "boss".

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Redi … nariesGetSource

I would say it is fortunate that you are a not a lawyer Zorbid, since you seem to skip the parts of the "law" that you don't agree with:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLR … rcePostedPublic

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? […]
Show full quote

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

>You can not steal something that is free

Someone could if they take the free and claim it as private, then try to shut down the free.