If you are taking this stance with DOSBox, then why are you not mentioning Inno Setup.
These resources are properly accredited via their documentation in the respective game folders

Yes we don't know, i am just trying to get some information about this. I didn't try to attack GOG or something, i was wondering if DOSbox crew gets some profits

keep yer politicks out of my vijia gaymes thank ya veray much.

It might be? Even though the creators of DOSbox have intentionally released their work for free, so no one has to pay for it, you think there's a possibility that it would be morally right to pay them?
Could you not find out for sure, first? Otherwise people can say "Well, it might not be morally right."

I'm just calling for the transparent transparency of visible to the invisible so we can unblindly see how blind our transparencies are!
That's all i'm sayin'

as someone said before... the dosbox guys are on this site.. so why not ask them?
I don't think GOG will release any info about their private business dealings. But since the dosbox guys AIM was to let people play old games - i'd imagine they'd be happy to have a site like GOG that gives people legal and easy access to those games.
I don't think they coded dosbox for money, but rather due to a love of games.
Anyway: if anyone wants to make a donation... feel free:
[url=]http://www.dosbox.com/[/url]

Nobody forces you to do it, obviously.
However, Countersweet is not alone in thinking that using the work of DOSBox team to earn money and not giving them anything in return - as much as allowed by their current license - is unfair to them. Remember these people spent - quite literally - years of work to develop the program to its current state.
That's a lot of effort, and yet people are taking for granted. Makes you wonder what all those people would do if DOSBox never saw the light of day...
If they decide that the GPL license they chose is being abused by companies using DOSBox to release (or rather, re-release) commercial products, there is absolutely nothing that would stop them from switching to a different license in a future version of the program. As in, a license that would preclude further commercial use of the program.

Some people seem to be interested in whether the DOSBox crew benefits from being used by GOG by either money or code.
We don't, but that's no surprise to us. None of the companies that use DOSBox commercially has ever donated either money or code. (DOSBox is open source, so anyone can add new improvements to the code and/or create patches to fix problems with specific games; this is what I consider donations in code).
We have received an occasional gift - either games or items related to them, but the companies never donate the really important things: code and/or money.
In fact we have never been given the games that are sold with DOSBox, aside from the few times where we were needed to create the configuration file for the game. (It's pretty difficult to do that without having access to the game).
From GOG we got a few free game coupons. (I think all people who joined during the press beta got them)
Maximization of profits is probably a large part of the reason for that; it might be difficult to explain to the bookkeeper why you gave money away to something that is free, but giving away a game/item you have in stock is easier and can be considered PR.
Fortunately, we do receive donations in money and code from individuals.
I don't expect many from the average GOG customer, though. After all (s)he has already paid money in order to receive the package which includes DOSBox, I doubt that (s)he will feel much incentive to pay even more money.
I'd like to point out that my membership on this forum has nothing to do with whether we approve of GOG using DOSBox or not. I'm here because I like old games. Our opinion on GOG's use of DOSBox is irrelevant, as they don't need our permission to do so.
Correct, however we didn't really code it for others to make money of it either. We are honoured that our program is used by GOG (and other companies) to run their old titles, however it feels a little weird that others are making profits from a product of 6 years of our work.
Of course this is allowed by our license which we chose ages ago, which, as noted above, can be changed

Nice to see an official response on this matter.
Yes, the situation described is a general thing encountered by all open-source developers and a problem with which most have to deal with either by changing their license or by discontinuing the project they're working on.
The "donation" of money from a big company who is built around making profits is hard from their standpoint (how do they justify it seeing that the product towards which the money was given is free, as in it doesn't have to be paid in order to be used) and they sometimes try and compensate by giving out promotional materials. On the other aspect, of donating code we fortunately see an improvement as more and more companies start donating time and code towards open source projects; unfortunately the project you develop isn't that mainstream as a programming language or OS or whatever (you got the point).
The good part though, if I may call it that, is that your project (you is generic here and refers to the team and contributors) is going to be better known due to the fact that it's being used by large distribution groups (Steam/Valve, GOG etc.) and this may lead (hopefully) to a bigger number of incoming contributions and donations (be they code or money).
Regarding the donation of money by GOG customers, I think that most of them don't know that this is possible; I still want to believe that there are people willing to support a good project.

I think that including DOSBox with the games here in GOG isn't a way of increasing profit, but only providing the platform for a legally bought game to be played readily on an NT based OS. It actually saves us a little time in looking for dosbox separately, learning to configure it (not sure on this issue, as i've read requests for a dosbox frontend) and finally playing things in it.
But thats just my opinion
Going a little off topic, I would really like to thank you Qbix and all of your team for making DOSBox. Since I've found it I havent stopped playing my old DOS games in it flawlessly! Great job!!

I've always felt that Microsoft are the ones who really owes the DOSBox team. DOSBox in essence (commercial implementations like in GOG, Valve, or Sierra's case) picks up the slack where Microsoft doesn't properly support their own monopoly they enjoy. It was obvious that the most beloved older 9x/DOS software was games and in the transition to the average machine being NT kernel based in the early 2000's, I feel their effort was half-hearted at best to support the older games.
Especially at that time given the current state of hardware it was obvious to take a hardware emulation approach. They showed they understood this when they purchased Connectix (VirtualPC) back around 2003. They focused mainly on profiting from it in their server technologies and as a means to sell windows to Mac users, etc. Considering the resources they purchased back in 2003 and little if any of that going to support their own monopoly - i.e. a decent DOS emulator for games on NT/Vista or an emu for trusted 16bit apps on 64bit versions of windows. Microsoft not only has the cash - but I feel who is the most obliged to commercially support DOSBox if needed. The real problem with M.S. lies in that business paradigm they have of "not showing too much support of open source software."
Thank you and the rest of the DOSBox contributors for all your hard work.

Without that little bit the games would not be readily playable (for most users that would mean not playable at all), and as such definitely wouldn't sell the way they do.
It's not that complicated. Anyone with opposable thumbs can learn to do that within an hour.
Also, as DOSBox supports multiple config files and automation of commands, it's easy to set up a custom config that starts a game directly from a shortcut on your desktop. I've done that with well over a hundred games to this day, works like a charm every time.

You've almost answered yourself there. If its not that complicated, why do we question the "morals" of GOG when they deploy their games with DOSBox? isnt it better for people who want to revive their good old games to just play them instead of being forced to learn something new?
Trust me, I work with people of all ages and if there's something I know about this issue is that they just want things to work. They don't care how it works as long as it does.
Maybe a disclaimer is in order, something like "This game is able to run in your computer thanks to the DOSBox development team." or something like that.
Edit: err, scratch that.here it is!

Better yet, DOSBox should start releasing with a "Powered by DOSBox" splash screen and a polite request that if their code should be used that the splash screen be left intact.
Then we'd be able to easily discover who's being a douchebag and who's just a freeloader.
(Speaking as a freeloading Linux user myself, and staunch supporter of the GPL).