6 ms·

Not paid, quite the opposite. From http://wiki.mamedev.org/index.php/Is_MAME_Open_Source%3f http://wiki.mamedev.org/index.php/Is_MAME_Open_Source%3f (pasted her

by oddevan 11y ago

Not paid, quite the opposite. From http://wiki.mamedev.org/index.php/Is_MAME_Open_Source%3f http://wiki.mamedev.org/index.php/Is_MAME_Open_Source%3f (pasted here in case the page changes soon): > MAME's License is a modified version of the standard BSD license. The primary modification is that we do not allow commercial distribution or use of MAME, in order to limit some of the obvious abuses of the code. Because of this modification, MAME's license does not fall under the definition of an Open Source (uppercase) license. This is one of the reasons you don't see the MAME source code hosted on sites such as SourceForge. > Confusingly, MAME is often referred to as open source (lowercase), as its development shares much in common with other open source projects. However, in spite of its freely available source code, MAME may not be used in a commercial setting, as specified by its license.

gauravagarwalr 11y ago
Sounds like Copyleft licenses like GPL and LGPL.
- rcthompson 11y ago
  No, the GPL family of licenses do not forbid commercial distribution.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Definitely more restrictive than the GPL. Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting.
  - mystikal 11y ago
    > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Except develop the software however they want.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      > > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. > Except develop the software however they want. I don't know where you got that idea from. You can develop the software however you like. That's a technical question. The only requirement is that people you distribute your software to must also get the source code. The GPL's job is to protect user's freedom. The developers don't get any special treatment.
      - pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
        i don't know where you live that you never got the tivoization lawsuit articles. you're an idiot.
      - git-pull 11y ago
        > > Except develop the software however they want. > I don't know where you got that idea from. Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. The license isn't backwards compatible. I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. > You can develop the software however you like. Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux.
        cyphar 11y ago
        >>> Except develop the software however they want. >> I don't know where you got that idea from. > Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. Explain it to your employer better then. Or find a better employer. Not to mention they are almost certainly using GPL code /somewhere/. > The license isn't backwards compatible. GPLvX or later makes them pseudo-compatible (you can release a combination under a newer license). That works fine for most people. > I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet. You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. 1) Yes you can, it'll just become GPL licensed as a whole. 2) I don't think anyone would consider copying a structure as being a "significant portion" of the code. In fact, in C, structures aren't code at all, they're an API (the `struct` keyword generates no code). And I think we all agree as a community that APIs are not copyrightable (or else Linux and GNU would be the largest copyright violations on the planet). >> You can develop the software however you like. > Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux. ZFS on Linux / Dtrace are FUD. Given that Oracle already distributes DTrace with their Linux distribution, it's clearly dual-GPL licensed DTrace to their customers. If you agree that ZFS being included with Linux would be a GPL violation (I don't, because the spirit of the GPL is applied, and the binary itself is not a violation because CDDL allows sublicensing of the resulting binary), then distributing it as source that is compiled on the users' machine (DKMS) is fine. Not to mention that Oracle will not have standing to sue (their license has not been violated in the case of distributing CDDL code with the GPL -- the only people you can argue have their copyright violated are the the Linux kernel guys and I don't see why they would sue people for the dubious license under which the source code is distributed -- nobody seriously believes their whole work will be under the CDDL, only code that was ported directly from illumos's ZFS). The LLVM/Clang thing was caused by technical decisions in GCC, where they believed that making something like LLVM's IR would allow people to make proprietary compilers based on their technology (which is a valid grievance if you care about preserving software freedom). The point is that it was a technical decision. The only requirement you have if you use the GPL is to accompany your binaries with the source (or the other two provisions in the license which aren't as well-used as others).
  - git-pull 11y ago
    I'm striked by all this grey text! > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Did you know FreeBSD allows you to build a full release into memory stick right from the source? No developer experience necessary! :-) Its easy forget that with the GPL, you also pass on the burden of whomever distributes software provides a way to get the source. BSD encumbers you with no such strings attached. The words "do whatever they want" and "definitely use in commercial setting" may be better set with an asterisk. GPL software is often available for free downloads and by second hand on CD's, notably with access to source code. Its popular among developers. Knowing that, it surprises me how often I see statements expressing GPL as if it were a brand new, moddable car with absolutely no string attached. GPL software would provide a means to get the source code, but other open source projects do too. But if you hand someone that Ubuntu CD, they definitely can't "do whatever they want". Its obligating them to comply to terms should they distribute it. > Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting. The obligations do not run over well with commercial or reselling. I speak from personal experience and pain having dealt with GPLv2 in a commercial settings years ago. Ultimately business was lost do the the lack of flexibility we could give our customers. We had to deal with whether deploying our code on customers' servers created a distribution. Some customers will only accept running software if its on their servers, full stop. Many of the most successful public tech companies keep their code proprietary. Not out of pulling one over on you, or to limit your rights, but out of competitive advantage. Many choose to release code at their discretion, often in permissive libraries. > Except develop the software however they want. (greyed out as if it were incorrect) My BSD licensed projects can't simply pull in GPL code. My could would then be a derivative, the license would also affect people using code of my distributed with GPL parts. For GPL, the control over the distribution is uncharacteristically rigid in an open source software ecosystem of shared libraries built from source, developers contributing upstream on projects despite terms forcing reciprocity. The terms cascade downstream and steer the ultimate fate of the project - its not backwards compatible. You're walling yourself off to developers who can't comply with the terms GPL, and if you lose developers, you're losing potential contributions to the project.
- cyphar 11y ago
  It's not a free software license, nor is it copyleft. So it's nothing like the GPL. It's just another proprietary license (like the first license Linux was placed under before Torvalds relicensed it under the GPLv2).
nailer 11y ago
> Confusingly, MAME is often referred to as open source (lowercase) That's stupid. Open Source has a meaning, which is the OSD: changing case doesn't alter that meaning. You can get source code for Windows 10 too (if you work at the right university) that doesn't mean Windows 10 is open source any more than old-MAME was.
- maaku 11y ago
  The phrase "open source" does predate the OSD.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    No, everyone seems to believe that, but it does not. The phrase did not exist before 1998, when OSI published the OSD and Tim O'Reilly viciously promoted it: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1990&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bopen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&ca... http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... http://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler http://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
    - nailer 11y ago
      That's an excellent set of references. I've posted the second one to New: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230832
    - maaku 11y ago
      The phrase "open source" predates its use in software.
      - Flimm 11y ago
        That graph from Google trends seems to contradict that point.

by oddevan 11y ago

gauravagarwalr 11y ago

Sounds like Copyleft licenses like GPL and LGPL.

rcthompson 11y ago
No, the GPL family of licenses do not forbid commercial distribution.
nothrabannosir 11y ago
Definitely more restrictive than the GPL. Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting.
- mystikal 11y ago
  > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Except develop the software however they want.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. > Except develop the software however they want. I don't know where you got that idea from. You can develop the software however you like. That's a technical question. The only requirement is that people you distribute your software to must also get the source code. The GPL's job is to protect user's freedom. The developers don't get any special treatment.
    - pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
      i don't know where you live that you never got the tivoization lawsuit articles. you're an idiot.
    - git-pull 11y ago
      > > Except develop the software however they want. > I don't know where you got that idea from. Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. The license isn't backwards compatible. I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. > You can develop the software however you like. Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux.
      - cyphar 11y ago
        >>> Except develop the software however they want. >> I don't know where you got that idea from. > Many employers won't allow GPL codebase. Explain it to your employer better then. Or find a better employer. Not to mention they are almost certainly using GPL code /somewhere/. > The license isn't backwards compatible. GPLvX or later makes them pseudo-compatible (you can release a combination under a newer license). That works fine for most people. > I can't simply pull GPL code into my BSD licensed project. Even a snippet. You can't, say, simply copy and paste a struct out of git or even libgit2. 1) Yes you can, it'll just become GPL licensed as a whole. 2) I don't think anyone would consider copying a structure as being a "significant portion" of the code. In fact, in C, structures aren't code at all, they're an API (the `struct` keyword generates no code). And I think we all agree as a community that APIs are not copyrightable (or else Linux and GNU would be the largest copyright violations on the planet). >> You can develop the software however you like. > Heh, its notorious for causing roadblocks in development. Look up the stories on LLVM/Clang, ZFS in Linux. ZFS on Linux / Dtrace are FUD. Given that Oracle already distributes DTrace with their Linux distribution, it's clearly dual-GPL licensed DTrace to their customers. If you agree that ZFS being included with Linux would be a GPL violation (I don't, because the spirit of the GPL is applied, and the binary itself is not a violation because CDDL allows sublicensing of the resulting binary), then distributing it as source that is compiled on the users' machine (DKMS) is fine. Not to mention that Oracle will not have standing to sue (their license has not been violated in the case of distributing CDDL code with the GPL -- the only people you can argue have their copyright violated are the the Linux kernel guys and I don't see why they would sue people for the dubious license under which the source code is distributed -- nobody seriously believes their whole work will be under the CDDL, only code that was ported directly from illumos's ZFS). The LLVM/Clang thing was caused by technical decisions in GCC, where they believed that making something like LLVM's IR would allow people to make proprietary compilers based on their technology (which is a valid grievance if you care about preserving software freedom). The point is that it was a technical decision. The only requirement you have if you use the GPL is to accompany your binaries with the source (or the other two provisions in the license which aren't as well-used as others).
- git-pull 11y ago
  I'm striked by all this grey text! > Crucially, a user of GPL software is allowed to do whatever they want. Did you know FreeBSD allows you to build a full release into memory stick right from the source? No developer experience necessary! :-) Its easy forget that with the GPL, you also pass on the burden of whomever distributes software provides a way to get the source. BSD encumbers you with no such strings attached. The words "do whatever they want" and "definitely use in commercial setting" may be better set with an asterisk. GPL software is often available for free downloads and by second hand on CD's, notably with access to source code. Its popular among developers. Knowing that, it surprises me how often I see statements expressing GPL as if it were a brand new, moddable car with absolutely no string attached. GPL software would provide a means to get the source code, but other open source projects do too. But if you hand someone that Ubuntu CD, they definitely can't "do whatever they want". Its obligating them to comply to terms should they distribute it. > Even resell for money, and definitely use in commercial setting. The obligations do not run over well with commercial or reselling. I speak from personal experience and pain having dealt with GPLv2 in a commercial settings years ago. Ultimately business was lost do the the lack of flexibility we could give our customers. We had to deal with whether deploying our code on customers' servers created a distribution. Some customers will only accept running software if its on their servers, full stop. Many of the most successful public tech companies keep their code proprietary. Not out of pulling one over on you, or to limit your rights, but out of competitive advantage. Many choose to release code at their discretion, often in permissive libraries. > Except develop the software however they want. (greyed out as if it were incorrect) My BSD licensed projects can't simply pull in GPL code. My could would then be a derivative, the license would also affect people using code of my distributed with GPL parts. For GPL, the control over the distribution is uncharacteristically rigid in an open source software ecosystem of shared libraries built from source, developers contributing upstream on projects despite terms forcing reciprocity. The terms cascade downstream and steer the ultimate fate of the project - its not backwards compatible. You're walling yourself off to developers who can't comply with the terms GPL, and if you lose developers, you're losing potential contributions to the project.
cyphar 11y ago
It's not a free software license, nor is it copyleft. So it's nothing like the GPL. It's just another proprietary license (like the first license Linux was placed under before Torvalds relicensed it under the GPLv2).

nailer 11y ago

> Confusingly, MAME is often referred to as open source (lowercase) That's stupid. Open Source has a meaning, which is the OSD: changing case doesn't alter that meaning. You can get source code for Windows 10 too (if you work at the right university) that doesn't mean Windows 10 is open source any more than old-MAME was.

maaku 11y ago
The phrase "open source" does predate the OSD.
- jordigh 11y ago
  No, everyone seems to believe that, but it does not. The phrase did not exist before 1998, when OSI published the OSD and Tim O'Reilly viciously promoted it: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1990&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bopen%20source%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open+source&ca... http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgotten-about-open-source/ http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... http://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler http://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
  - nailer 11y ago
    That's an excellent set of references. I've posted the second one to New: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11230832
  - maaku 11y ago
    The phrase "open source" predates its use in software.
    - Flimm 11y ago
      That graph from Google trends seems to contradict that point.