4 ms·

Does anybody know what license they're going to be going for?

by spb 11y ago

unwiredben 11y ago
From looking at their repo, it looks like standard BSD-3-Clause. They've been tagging all the files with license comments at the top as they go through identifying authors and making sure everything is re-licensed consistently.
- protomyth 11y ago
  from their site "MAME is free. Its source code is free. Selling either is not allowed." Wonder how that works with the BSD-3-Clause?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - duskwuff 11y ago
    That's referring to the old license. The "selling either is not allowed" part is going to go away under new licensing.
  - schoen 11y ago
    I believe that's the old policy prior to the current relicensing effort.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > Wonder how that works with the BSD-3-Clause? You can put whatever you want in your license. You can say it's based on GPL and add an non-commercial layer on it. You don't have to restrict yourself to licenses already written.
- gillianseed 11y ago
  I just made a quick browse of the commits and there's a lot of BSD-3 but also GPLv2, so I gather the full MAME project will be GPL licensed, but of course you can use the BSD-3 licensed code in non-GPL licensed projects.
kstenerud 11y ago
I got an email about it requesting permission to change the license of my CPU cores. To quote: > (will be BSD3 for core files and BSD3,GPL2 or LGPL2 for drivers/emulators)
- Lorento 11y ago
  What do you think the feeling among contributors is? Are you happy to change yours? Doesn't GPL effectively prohibit combining it with a closed source commercial product? That suggests you still won't be able to bundle all of MAME with a ROM.
  - gillianseed 11y ago
    >Doesn't GPL effectively prohibit combining it with a closed source commercial product? Well yes, since if you sell it to someone you need to offer them the source code should they want it. However the incentive here (as I understand it) was to allow MAME to be used in museums and the like where they charge an entry fee (thus commercial use), and not in order to make it easy for people to create closed source commercial forks of MAME.
  - byuu 11y ago
    I wasn't happy that GPLv3 wasn't an option, as I am against TiVoization; but I didn't want to throw a wrench in their efforts, so I accepted GPLv2. (The older license was more permissive in my opinion; but a TiVo product was less likely if it couldn't be sold for profit.)
    - SXX 11y ago
      TiVoizaton is bad thing of course, but sadly GPLv3 for example won't let to put any app using this code to App Store. Though weird why don't they at least consider GPLv2 or later as it's give a choice for anyone who may want to maintain GPLv3 forks.
      - byuu 11y ago
        > TiVoizaton is bad thing of course, but sadly GPLv3 for example won't let to put any app using this code to App Store. That to me feels like more of a problem with the App Store than with the GPLv3. But, I know that idealism tends to get in the way of pragmatism. I understand why they wanted GPLv2. > Though weird why don't they at least consider GPLv2 or later as it's give a choice for anyone who may want to maintain GPLv3 forks. I might say GPLv2-3, but I'd be worried about saying "or later", when I don't know what the GPLv4 will hold. Yet at the same time, if I did end up liking it, I'd hate to then be stuck on v2-v3 only. Very tough problem.

Does anybody know what license they're going to be going for?

by spb 11y ago

Does anybody know what license they're going to be going for?

From looking at their repo, it looks like standard BSD-3-Clause. They've been tagging all the files with license comments at the top as they go through identifying authors and making sure everything is re-licensed consistently.

protomyth 11y ago
from their site "MAME is free. Its source code is free. Selling either is not allowed." Wonder how that works with the BSD-3-Clause?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- duskwuff 11y ago
  That's referring to the old license. The "selling either is not allowed" part is going to go away under new licensing.
- schoen 11y ago
  I believe that's the old policy prior to the current relicensing effort.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Wonder how that works with the BSD-3-Clause? You can put whatever you want in your license. You can say it's based on GPL and add an non-commercial layer on it. You don't have to restrict yourself to licenses already written.
gillianseed 11y ago
I just made a quick browse of the commits and there's a lot of BSD-3 but also GPLv2, so I gather the full MAME project will be GPL licensed, but of course you can use the BSD-3 licensed code in non-GPL licensed projects.

kstenerud 11y ago

I got an email about it requesting permission to change the license of my CPU cores. To quote: > (will be BSD3 for core files and BSD3,GPL2 or LGPL2 for drivers/emulators)

Lorento 11y ago
What do you think the feeling among contributors is? Are you happy to change yours? Doesn't GPL effectively prohibit combining it with a closed source commercial product? That suggests you still won't be able to bundle all of MAME with a ROM.
- gillianseed 11y ago
  >Doesn't GPL effectively prohibit combining it with a closed source commercial product? Well yes, since if you sell it to someone you need to offer them the source code should they want it. However the incentive here (as I understand it) was to allow MAME to be used in museums and the like where they charge an entry fee (thus commercial use), and not in order to make it easy for people to create closed source commercial forks of MAME.
- byuu 11y ago
  I wasn't happy that GPLv3 wasn't an option, as I am against TiVoization; but I didn't want to throw a wrench in their efforts, so I accepted GPLv2. (The older license was more permissive in my opinion; but a TiVo product was less likely if it couldn't be sold for profit.)
  - SXX 11y ago
    TiVoizaton is bad thing of course, but sadly GPLv3 for example won't let to put any app using this code to App Store. Though weird why don't they at least consider GPLv2 or later as it's give a choice for anyone who may want to maintain GPLv3 forks.
    - byuu 11y ago
      > TiVoizaton is bad thing of course, but sadly GPLv3 for example won't let to put any app using this code to App Store. That to me feels like more of a problem with the App Store than with the GPLv3. But, I know that idealism tends to get in the way of pragmatism. I understand why they wanted GPLv2. > Though weird why don't they at least consider GPLv2 or later as it's give a choice for anyone who may want to maintain GPLv3 forks. I might say GPLv2-3, but I'd be worried about saying "or later", when I don't know what the GPLv4 will hold. Yet at the same time, if I did end up liking it, I'd hate to then be stuck on v2-v3 only. Very tough problem.