4 ms·
It might not be, but it's easy to understand why a casual observer would think so. The latest news on the dosbox website is from 2013, and the latest version
by richard_todd 10y ago
It might not be, but it's easy to understand why a casual observer would think so. The latest news on the dosbox website is from 2013, and the latest version (0.74) was released in 2010 according to the date on the sourceforge download page.
I wonder why they have not made another official release?
- werdna123 10y agoIdk, probably because it works great
- voltagex_ 10y agoInterestingly, GOG (Good Old Games) are quite happy to ship 0.74 (including wasting 1.5 megabytes of space in most games by shipping the source) with their commercial games - even the latest one 11 days ago (yes, I bought it just to check!) https://www.gog.com/forum/general/whats_the_latest_dosbox_based_game_released_on_gog https://www.gog.com/forum/general/whats_the_latest_dosbox_ba...
- detaro 10y agothe "wasted" 1.5 MB probably are the simplest way for them to be sure to be GPL compliant.
- voltagex_ 10y agoTrue, but wouldn't they be compliant pointing to http://gog.com/dosbox http://gog.com/dosbox as well?
- detaro 10y agoI think that would work just as well and would have been my first idea too, but IMHO it's kind of an elegant solution to do it this way. The recipient can very easily find the exact version used and they don't have to maintain that information somewhere else. Especially if they add specific patches -> I know that they often modify the game binaries, but maybe they have custom DOSbox changes as well.
- lmm 10y agoThey would have to send a written offer valid for any third party and for IIRC 3 years, so they'd have to commit to their hosting being available and so on. Probably cheaper to just send the 1.5MB.