Please add a license to this repo

[mbrukman]

Could you please add an explicit LICENSE file to the repo so that it's clear under what terms the content is provided, and under what terms user contributions are licensed?

Per GitHub docs on licensing:

[...] without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license.

Thanks!

[3371-Alpha]

I think the reason for a lack of a license is that it contains a mixture of software, i.e. includes gus patches, univbe 4.0, some freedos utilities, ect. In other words it has a mixture of licenses. Boxer it's self appears to be released under the GNU Public License 2.0, at least according to Finder's get info.

Considering that Boxer hasn't been updated in a while, do you think Alunbestor has passed on? I know that sounds foolish on first thought, but it happened to Sherm Pendley of Camel Bones and Japheth of the HX DOS Extender. Maybe I'm overreacting.

[almeath]

He was always very good at responding to my emails when I asked for help with Boxer, but after 2015 I never got any more replies so I gave up. He has also not been active on Twitter, Linkedin etc since 2015. I trust he is alright and just decided to cut himself off from programming and social media for a while to focus on other things. I hope one day he will return.

[amcgregor]

mixture of software

GNU Public License 2.0

If any of the software incorporated is GPL, then Boxer must itself be GPL. The viral aspect of that license. It should still be acknowledged, though, rather than implied through interpretive dance, noting that the dance was too abstract for GitHub to be able to detect—it highlights the license in the project upper navigation, but only if it can detect one.