PSP Dosbox's Source Code

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:08 am

I searched for psp dosbox source code and i couldn't.. Why didn't crazyc release its source code? I'm sorry for my bad speaking English... Please if don't know answer, don't reply this topic.

J.F. · Post by **J.F.** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:13 am

At the moment, he only does a diff file which you can find in the same post as the rest of the stuff (conf file, eboot). It would be better to have a complete source archive with final makefile and whatnot, but he doesn't have to release more than the diff.

jimparis · Post by **jimparis** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:02 am

J.F. wrote:he doesn't have to release more than the diff.

By what metric? DOSBox is GPL, and the GPLv2 says that if you distribute binaries, you must "accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". Specifically this is described as "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."

So crazyc does have to release more than just the diff if he is also releasing binaries, according to the GPL.

crazyc · Post by **crazyc** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:53 am

jimparis wrote:By what metric? DOSBox is GPL, and the GPLv2 says that if you distribute binaries, you must "accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". Specifically this is described as "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."

Every thing needed to build it is available. Look here.

J.F. · Post by **J.F.** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:00 pm

jimparis wrote:
J.F. wrote:he doesn't have to release more than the diff.
By what metric? DOSBox is GPL, and the GPLv2 says that if you distribute binaries, you must "accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". Specifically this is described as "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."

So crazyc does have to release more than just the diff if he is also releasing binaries, according to the GPL.

I always supply EVERYTHING, but I wasn't positive about whether I HAD to. Here's what I found on the GNU page.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... convenient

I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with the binaries?

This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job.

A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.

So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries.

So if the project is under the GPL, you cannot supply just diffs or what files are different. You have to supply everything. Good thing I've always done that. :)

jean · Post by **jean** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:46 pm

Don't know if i remember right but...every license ever made is nothing but a personal agreement between parts (developer[s] and user[s] in a one to one fashion) that is implicitly accepted in the moment you use the software, and is void if one of the two parts does not respect license terms. In addition to this, if a developer is the unique first part of such an agreement, he can change license terms in any moment without affecting the licenses downloaded with his product until the moment of change. So, generally nobody HAS to do nothing, and just to give my two cents, i think it's not so good to think that way...

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:50 pm

If everythings is ready, that may be easy. And please release your changed psp toolchain. And are you using pspdev(cygwin shell)?

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:56 pm

crazyc wrote:Someone sent me a PM asking how to build it so here's an attempt to describe the rather difficult procedure.

1) get dosbox 0.71
2) apply the patch
3) get renderpsp.h and put it in src/gui, get fpu_instructions_vfpu.h and put it in src/fpu, and get p_sprint.h and put it in src/gui
4) install SDL, dosbox-psp doesn't use it but configure requires it for now
5) run configure, I use "CXXFLAGS='-I/usr/local/pspdev/psp/sdk/include -Ic:/pspdev/psp/include/SDL -fomit-frame-pointer -Os -frename-registers -finline -finline-limit=200 -msingle-float -ffast-math fsingle-precision-constant -G0 -I/c/pspdev/psp/include/SDL' LDFLAGS='-lc -lpspuser -lpspkernel -L/usr/local/pspdev/psp/sdk/lib' ./configure --host=psp", but use what ever cflags you want
6) build it, link will fail
7) compile p_sprint.c and ftruncate.c put them in src
8) change to src and link with
Code: Select all
psp-gcc -L/usr/local/pspdev/psp/sdk/lib -o dosbox  dosbox.o ftruncate.o cpu/libcpu.a debug/libdebug.a dos/libdos.a fpu/libfpu.a  hardware/libhardware.a gui/libgui.a ints/libints.a misc/libmisc.a shell/libshell.a -lm hardware/serialport/libserial.a p_sprint.o -lpspdebug -lpspgu -lpspctrl -lpspdisplay -lpspge -lpspsdk -lpsprtc -lpspaudio -lstdc++ -lpspirkeyb -lc -lpspnet -lpspnet_inet -lpsppower -lpsputility -lpspuser -lpspkernel -specs=/usr/local/pspdev/psp/sdk/lib/prxspecs -Wl,-Tc&#58;/pspdev/psp/sdk/lib/linkfile.prx,-q && psp-fixup-imports.exe dosbox && psp-prxgen dosbox dosbox.prx && pack-pbp EBOOT.PBP PARAM.SFO NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL dosbox.prx NULL
There are probably changes i've made to my toolchain that will cause this to fail, so post if there are other problems.

And how did you integrate OSK and libpspkeyb? And how can I patch?

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:59 pm

crazyc wrote:
jimparis wrote:By what metric? DOSBox is GPL, and the GPLv2 says that if you distribute binaries, you must "accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code". Specifically this is described as "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."
Every thing needed to build it is available. Look here.

He said crazyc "you must release source code for GNU/GPL license and changes what you did in original Dosbox source code."

c2woody · Post by **c2woody** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:14 pm

J.F. wrote:So if the project is under the GPL, you cannot supply just diffs or what files are different. You have to supply everything.

We assure that the sources will be available from the official project page, so a diff against them is fine as it fulfils the GPL's requirement that a user has access to the modified sources (ie. original sources+diff) at any time.

Also there is no whatsoever statement that the sources have to be ready for straight compiling. We don't even guarantee that the dosbox cvs sources at sourceforge compile.

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:26 pm

In GNU/GPL, if you change something, you must release that with open source code. Because DosBox licensed under GNU/GPL.

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:35 pm

what are you discussing? Unfortunately, i think someone hangs about that. why?
Please if you don't know real and true answer. don't reply this topic. I'm using PSPDEV Toolchain. And I can't patch it and I can't integrate SDL libraries into Dosbox, too. Anyone helps me. I wan't to add IrDA device as serial port to Dosbox and PSP's Full Memory Support.(Dax released it)
If I do this for Slim, I try to install 64 MB support OS on PSP. And I try to install 32 MB Support OS on PSP Fat, too...
And I send changed source code to crazyc...

crazyc · Post by **crazyc** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:38 am

If everythings is ready, that may be easy. And please release your changed psp toolchain. And are you using pspdev(cygwin shell)?

I don't even remember many of the changes I made to my toolchain. If you look though the other thread most of it was eventually figured out. It isn't easy to build, I know that, but don't currently want to spend the time messing with autoconf that it would take to simplify the build process.

ardatan wrote:If I do this for Slim, I try to install 64 MB support OS on PSP. And I try to install 32 MB Support OS on PSP Fat, too...

Somewhere, moonlight said that with recent versions of M33, the extra memory in the slim can be allocated simply with a malloc. If that is true, then it should just work with the current version of psp-dosbox.

In GNU/GPL, if you change something, you must release that with open source code. Because DosBox licensed under GNU/GPL.

C2woody is a dosbox developer, so he should know that as well as anyone.

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:06 am

OK. I understood. We wrote long messages. But there is no result. I learnt that I shouldn't want someone to help me for that anymore....

crazyc · Post by **crazyc** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:44 am

ardatan wrote:OK. I understood. We wrote long messages. But there is no result. I learnt that I shouldn't want someone to help me for that anymore....

I don't mind helping, but many of your questions have already been answered in the other thread.

jimparis · Post by **jimparis** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:48 am

c2woody wrote:We assure that the sources will be available from the official project page, so a diff against them is fine as it fulfils the GPL's requirement that a user has access to the modified sources (ie. original sources+diff) at any time.

Please, go read the GPL FAQ that J.F. quoted. It explicitly discusses this and you are wrong, a "diff" is not enough to satisfy the GPL. Now, if you're the copyright owner you are of course allowed to amend the license and permit whatever you wish, but by the straight GPL it is not OK.

Also there is no whatsoever statement that the sources have to be ready for straight compiling. We don't even guarantee that the dosbox cvs sources at sourceforge compile.

If one distributes a binary, the code must have been compilable.

I don't think anybody here will complain about what crazyc is doing, it seems harmeless. But technically it's wrong, and spreading misinformation about the GPL is not good and only makes it harder when people violate it with less friendly intentions!

c2woody · Post by **c2woody** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:11 am

If one distributes a binary, the code must have been compilable.

Which part of the GPL says that?

Please, go read the GPL FAQ that J.F. quoted

Please, go read the GPL FAQ and have a look at WHY they explicitly mention that a diff is not enough in the general case: because this does not allow the user to access the modified sources at any time (as the sources which the diff is based on could vanish for some reason). As dosbox is hosted on sourceforge (and source snapshots are accessible at other places for backup/convenience reasons), the means of providing access the full modified source code as required by the GPL are fulfiled.

J.F. · Post by **J.F.** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:53 am

crazyc wrote:Somewhere, moonlight said that with recent versions of M33, the extra memory in the slim can be allocated simply with a malloc. If that is true, then it should just work with the current version of psp-dosbox.

To get the extra memory on the slim, you need to add this to the makefile:

Code: Select all

PSP_LARGE_MEMORY = 1

It won't affect the phat, but alters the memory partitions on the slim before the program is run. It also requires a fairly up to date toolchain. The change to have the extra memory was made just about the time 3.71 M33 was released.

crazyc · Post by **crazyc** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:02 am

FSF wrote:A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time.

Dosbox 0.71 is available from their sourceforge page. As long as that is true I feel there is no problem with the GPL. If it should ever be gone, I have a copy and will post it.

To get the extra memory on the slim, you need to add this to the makefile:

Ok, thanks.

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:17 am

crazyc wrote:
FSF wrote:A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time.
Dosbox 0.71 is available from their sourceforge page. As long as that is true I feel there is no problem with the GPL. If it should ever be gone, I have a copy and will post it.
To get the extra memory on the slim, you need to add this to the makefile:
Ok, thanks.

I know that.:D

jimparis · Post by **jimparis** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:41 am

c2woody wrote:
If one distributes a binary, the code must have been compilable.
Which part of the GPL says that?

None. I am just pointing out the obvious fact that if you managed to compile code into a binary, then there was a way to get that code to compile into a binary.

Please, go read the GPL FAQ and have a look at WHY they explicitly mention that a diff is not enough in the general case

What matters is what the GPL says, not the rationale for why it says that.

c2woody · Post by **c2woody** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:27 am

What matters is what the GPL says

Right, and what you're referring to is the GPL faq which is how the FSF thinks that the GPL should be taken. Not the GPL itself.

jimparis · Post by **jimparis** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:27 pm

c2woody wrote:
What matters is what the GPL says
Right, and what you're referring to is the GPL faq which is how the FSF thinks that the GPL should be taken. Not the GPL itself.

I quoted the GPL: "accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code" ... "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."
J.F. quoted the FAQ.

c2woody · Post by **c2woody** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:27 pm

I quoted the GPL

Uhm yes and if you look one line above that part you quoted it says that this is one of the possibilities, not the only one.

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:09 am

result:
if someone doesn't want to do sth, he/she says non-sense longer longer things.....

c2woody · Post by **c2woody** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:41 pm

if someone doesn't want to do sth

He already put up everything needed including instructions,
but for some reason you don't want to use it.

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:04 am

I gives error. CrazyC isn't a real GNU/GPL developer. He may know these things. But if he doesn't do needed things, he cannot be a real GNU/GPL developer.
If you don't give the real compilable source code. Please!!!!!!! DON'T GIVE NON-SENSE ANSWERS. YOU'RE REPEATING SAME THINGS. YOU'RE HANGING ABOUT THAT.........

crazyc · Post by **crazyc** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:22 am

ardatan wrote:I gives error.

The only time you asked for help was when you posted "And how can I patch?". If you don't know how to use patch then, and I'm sure everyone will back me up, it's over your head.

Wally · Post by **Wally** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:38 am

Im pretty sure crazyc has a lot to do with the original dosbox team.

A diff file is easy to compile, you people just don't know how :P

ardatan · Post by **ardatan** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:35 pm

How does it patch and compile