|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316063 - 10/17/13 06:11 PM
|
|
|
> The ultimate block there was that Linus himself didn't like the GPLv3 (and with good
> reason; Linux's major wins in the last 10 years have primarily been in embedded
> (DVRs, Android, etc), which the v3's anti-TiVo language tries to stop).
Just to make it clear, GPLv3 did not prevent embedded use of of Linux in any way.
What it did (which is very much logical given the reason the licence exist is to give rights to end users) is that it defined new conditions which meant that if someone like Tivo for example used GPLv3 licenced code and required it to be signed with a special key in order to run on the device, then they would have to make that key available to the end user so that they could modify the code and run their modified code on said device, or alternatively allow the end user to generate their own valid key.
This obviously sits bad with many types of embedded devices which use this as a DRM method to prevent end users from doing what they want with said devices, however it's certainly in line with what GPL was initially created for so I can't agree to the 'with good reason' part.
That doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with Linus not wanting GPLv3 for Linux, but there certainly was nothing wrong with FSF for fixing this loophole in GPLv3 as again this licence exists to give rights to end users to examine (in source code form), modify, distribute and RUN GPL licenced code.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316065 - 10/17/13 07:06 PM
|
|
|
>If stuff gets mislicensed, it's quite obvious
How-so? I would think the opposite, unless every contributor remembers every line they ever wrote there's no way to know with much degree of certainty.
>A MAME+BSD file combined with a MAME+LGPL file would end up MAME-only
In which case the whole change is moot is it not? If parts of MAME are restrictively licensed then how is anyone without intimate knowledge of the code base going to know if their usage is in violation or not? Certainly, some museum curator can't just download MAME and use it on the assumption that it is using an OSI-approved license.
Don't get me wrong, the current MAME license is a bad idea for all the reasons you point out but changing it at this point is going to either be extremely messy and likely incomplete or just gloss over stuff in the hopes no one complains.
Edited by bdam (10/17/13 07:06 PM)
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: bdam]
#316074 - 10/17/13 09:27 PM
|
|
|
> Don't get me wrong, the current MAME license is a bad idea for all the reasons you
> point out but changing it at this point is going to either be extremely messy and
> likely incomplete or just gloss over stuff in the hopes no one complains.
My point is that it's *not* changing, we're just adding tags to source files to better document the origin and potential for non-MAME use of the files. This doesn't help people wanting to use the project as a whole, but it does start to crack the door open a little bit towards MAME being less arrogant and more of a true open source project.
|
|
|
| gregf |
|
Ramtek's Trivia promoter
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 8612
|
|
Loc: southern CA, US
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Museums
[Re: Smitdogg]
#316075 - 10/17/13 09:29 PM
|
|
|
>It doesn't matter to me if they change the license but it looks like each source file is
>being licensed individually. So unless you are a mamedev you aren't going to know which
>all files are used in the emulation of a specific system. Even if you are smart enough
>to chase all the includes there are still going to be core files you miss. I think it
>has become more murky now.
Like you already mentioned earlier, it used to be one email and that was it. Now it might require searching through all the source files beforehand, seeing which license is used for a specific driver file or associated files which could be two or three variations, and then have to find the author if possible.
Maybe the best current solution might be have each current MAMEdev member place in writing to Micko or MAMEdev website of what can be re-used so that way they don't need to be tracked down later by whoever needs permission to use portions of source code? Granted it is silly because source code is always updated by various contributors over time to each different source file, but I don't know if there is any better solution to resolve this.
In a way, it somewhat reminds me of the National Geographics magazine distributing a cd-rom collection version in late 1990s. The publishing firm had to track down as many contributors and advertisers as possible that provided material for various National Geographics magazine issues over the past century which is a significant undertaking to find: if business (if still existing), or find the rights that were acquired by other business, or find any of the contributors still alive, or their heirs that might retain the copyrights of their deceased relative's work.
The magazine probably gave up and decided to take a gamble through the court system instead.
--
Debate at Copyright Society: The Complete National Geographic
by Copyright Society of New York
November 30, 2005
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00215
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/12/5751-2/
Supreme Court rejects case against National Geographic’s CD-ROM
--
|
|
|
|
Re: Museums
[Re: Stiletto]
#316080 - 10/17/13 11:03 PM
|
|
|
> You'll also note that this whitepaper is from August 2010. This is surely not the
> first time an archive project decided not to go with MAME/MESS over its license -
> despite it being otherwise perfectly suited for this use.
They didn't test MESS, so we have no idea whether it would be perfectly suited. However while they deemed the MAME license as bad, they said that closed source commercial software was ok.
I don't know whether they made up a reason to exclude MESS specifically, or whether they just happened to stumble on arbitrary nonsensical rules.
Edited by smf (10/17/13 11:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: Why not put it to a vote?
[Re: zambr]
#316106 - 10/18/13 06:05 PM
|
|
|
> Just as an observer i'd like to comment/suggest, why not simply put this whole thing
> to a forum/online vote for the contributors, and leave the vote open for a whole
> month to allow people sufficient chance to catch it.
I'm pretty sure copyright law doesn't work that way.  What is needed is each contributor's permission, not their votes.
|
|
|
|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316107 - 10/18/13 06:09 PM
|
|
|
> The ultimate block there was that Linus himself didn't like the GPLv3 (and with good
> reason; Linux's major wins in the last 10 years have primarily been in embedded
> (DVRs, Android, etc), which the v3's anti-TiVo language tries to stop).
Yes, I was thinking the archives are useful for learning about the legal implications, even if the Linux team decided to not go through with their relicensing.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316109 - 10/18/13 06:24 PM
|
|
|
> My point is that it's *not* changing, we're just adding tags to source files to
> better document the origin and potential for non-MAME use of the files. This doesn't
> help people wanting to use the project as a whole, but it does start to crack the
> door open a little bit towards MAME being less arrogant and more of a true open
> source project.
A few posts back it sounded like ALL the source files would be MAME+BSD, so it's easy to get confused. Keeping the files that go way back as MAME license only and making newer files where authors and contributors can be identified MAME+BSD sounds perfectly fine legally!
|
|
|
|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: Spelunker]
#316159 - 10/19/13 07:27 PM
|
|
|
> but there certainly was nothing wrong with FSF for fixing this loophole in
> GPLv3 as again this licence exists to give rights to end users to examine (in source
> code form), modify, distribute and RUN GPL licenced code.
GPLv2 allows you to do all of those things. You can run the code on your own hardware, although it will be tricky to get content providers if you can't guarantee that you won't save the content in an unencrypted form.
I can perfectly understand why TiVo did what they did. It is more annoying to me that I had a Linksys Linux based router that to build the firmware you needed a GCC based toolchain that was only available to commercial partners. I potentially could have reverse engineered what it needed but it wasn't worth it. But as making Linux GPLv3 would mean TiVo would have to stop using Linux and that could damage Linux's revenue stream, then it is a no brainer. Richard Stallman can complain all he wants, but he does all right financially out of FSF too.
Edited by smf (10/19/13 07:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Spelunker]
#316160 - 10/19/13 07:35 PM
|
|
|
> Well if he wrote the files and placed them under a BSD licence, to which other
> developers contributed (under the same licence) then they are available under BSD,
> which is commercially and proprietary compatible already.
I understand the argument. I just don't know if in that situation you are legally forced to license it under BSD or whether you could argue that you were unaware that the file was under a different license. I'm not sure there is enough of my code in any of those files that I'm worried about arguing over.
> So the debate is hardly about that, Aaron likely have had this in mind for quite some
> time and has licenced his code appropriately, the question here is about the code
> other developers have contributed under the Mame licence.
He did have it in mind since the last discussion about changing the license (which did change the license to the current one). There however was a big push to try to force everyone to BSD license their code or have it replaced.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: absence]
#316161 - 10/19/13 07:42 PM
|
|
|
> A few posts back it sounded like ALL the source files would be MAME+BSD,
MAME+BSD is pointless, you can do anything with BSD & having it licensed MAME as well wouldn't achieve anything. The push was to get all source files BSD, but that didn't work out so well for those involved.
> to get confused. Keeping the files that go way back as MAME license only and making
> newer files where authors and contributors can be identified MAME+BSD sounds
> perfectly fine legally!
A lot of developers don't want their source to be licensed as BSD, there are plenty of BSD projects that have realised their mistake. There are plenty of write ups.
http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/2007/12/15/gpl-vs-bsd-a-matter-of-sustainability/
http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html
|
|
|
|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: ]
#316197 - 10/20/13 04:27 PM
|
|
|
> GPLv2 allows you to do all of those things. You can run the code on your own
> hardware,
First off, one of the rights GPL gives you as end user is the right to modify and run GPL licenced code on the device which comes with GPL licenced code.
When FSF crafted GPLv2 they inadvertedly left a 'bug' in the licence which allowed someone like Tivo to bypass this end user right by enforcing DRM through the Tivo only running code signed by Tivo themselves.
In other words, the hardware which you bought (Tivo), and as such is 'your own hardware', can't run the code you want despite it running GPL licenced software which is supposed to grant you that very right.
Now, whether or not you think this is a good condition to have is up to you, Linus didn't as this was the one issue he had with GPLv3, given that his primary interest is in getting any code enhancements merged back to Linux.
So for him, as he has stated numerous times, GPLv2 is the perfect licence, which is also why he did not add the typical 'or later' GPL clause to the Linux GPLv2 licence.
At the same time, from FSF's standpoint, this is a loophole which should be fixed as it again exists to give end users rights which includes receiving, modifying and running GPL code on the hardware on which it was shipped.
With some exceptions, such as code that can't be changed by anyone, like ROM.
So you have the choice to select which one you want for YOUR code, if you want to ensure the end users (which could end up being yourself) the right to run modified GPL code on hardware it ships with, use GPLv3, if you don't care about that and only want the potential source code modifications, you can use GPLv2.
No right or wrong here, just subjective choices.
> I had a Linksys Linux based router that to build the firmware you needed a GCC based
> toolchain that was only available to commercial partners. I potentially could have
> reverse engineered what it needed but it wasn't worth it.
That sounds like an obvious licence breach, they have to make the necessary tools to build the code available to recipients under GPLv2 aswell. Do you have any more information on this?
>But as making Linux GPLv3
> would mean TiVo would have to stop using Linux and that could damage Linux's revenue
> stream,
Not sure what 'revenue stream' Linux would have gotten through Tivo? It's not as if they had to pay anything to use it, also doubt there were any notable code contributions from Tivo.
In fact there's no revenue stream for Linux at all that I'm aware of, there are donations to the Linux foundation (from which Linus is paid his salary), but overall the kernel developers are directly hired by companies who in turn rely heavily on Linux, like Red Hat, IBM, Intel, etc
I believe that at best Linux got some recognition from being used in Tivo, but that's about it.
>Richard Stallman can complain all he wants, but he
> does all right financially out of FSF too.
Not sure what this has to do with anything, but from what I gather Stallman seems to live as a nomad, just going from place to place talking about free software. I must have missed those pictures of him chilling in his penthouse.
Furthermore it doesn't matter what Stallman, or anyone else 'thinks'. What matters is what developers decide to use as licence for their code, which in turn depends on what said developers want in return for their code.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: ]
#316199 - 10/20/13 04:37 PM
|
|
|
> I understand the argument. I just don't know if in that situation you are legally
> forced to license it under BSD or whether you could argue that you were unaware that
> the file was under a different license. I'm not sure there is enough of my code in
> any of those files that I'm worried about arguing over.
Well if the code was licenced under BSD at the time you made your submissions then your submissions are available under BSD, you can't 'take that back'.
However you are perfectly within your rights to offer your submissions under another licence aswell.
> He did have it in mind since the last discussion about changing the license (which
> did change the license to the current one). There however was a big push to try to
> force everyone to BSD license their code or have it replaced.
Well, I certainly don't like the idea of trying to force a vast licence change upon contributors, particularly from a position of power followed by a threat of 'accept or be replaced', so if that was indeed the case then I find it a case of real poor conduct.
Typically these types of actions only come into play when the instigator know full and well that the majority will be against his/her proposition. I think it's 'shitty' to say the least if your description of events is apt.
|
|
|
|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: Spelunker]
#316204 - 10/20/13 07:48 PM
|
|
|
> First off, one of the rights GPL gives you as end user is the right to modify and run
> GPL licenced code on the device which comes with GPL licenced code.
It doesn't give you that right, or TiVo would not have been able to do what they did. The FSF may have thought you should have that right, but they didn't write it into the GPL.
> That sounds like an obvious licence breach, they have to make the necessary tools to
> build the code available to recipients under GPLv2 aswell. Do you have any more
> information on this?
Linksys WAG354G, I think eventually it got sorted out. However GPLv2 doesn't force you to provide the necessary tools to build the source code, only that the changes to the source code must be made available. Again FSF may have forgotten to add it to v2, but they added it for v3.
There is no mention of tools in GPLv2 & the only mention of compiling/installation is providing the scripts. If those scripts rely on proprietary tools then you can't build it and the GPLv2 hasn't been violated.
You call it a bug, I'd say that if they thought about preventing the TiVo situation then they forgot to write about it in GPLv2. But I believe they didn't come up with the scenario. Which is good because otherwise the TiVo would not have used Linux.
> In fact there's no revenue stream for Linux at all that I'm aware of,
> there are donations to the Linux foundation (from which Linus is paid
> his salary), but overall the kernel developers are directly hired by
> companies who in turn rely heavily on Linux, like Red Hat, IBM, Intel, etc
You say there is no revenue stream and yet you describe a revenue stream.
I'm sure IBM would do the same as TiVo if they were contracted to build some hardware that needed DRM. TiVo hardware has been manufactured by Philips, Sony, Cisco, Hughes, Pioneer, Toshiba, and Humax. I don't know who is responsible for the kernel DRM whether it's TiVo or the hardware partners.
Edited by smf (10/20/13 08:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: ]
#316211 - 10/20/13 09:26 PM
|
|
|
> It doesn't give you that right, or TiVo would not have been able to do what they did.
> The FSF may have thought you should have that right, but they didn't write it into
> the GPL.
Yes, which they have stated was an oversight as they didn't foresee the use of DRM to limit this end user right, and as such they amended this in GPLv3.
> Linksys WAG354G, I think eventually it got sorted out. However GPLv2 doesn't force
> you to provide the necessary tools to build the source code, only that the changes to
> the source code must be made available.
Ah true, it's a GPLv3 addendum aswell (a very good one I think).
> You call it a bug, I'd say that if they thought about preventing the TiVo situation
> then they forgot to write about it in GPLv2. But I believe they didn't come up with
> the scenario. Which is good because otherwise the TiVo would not have used Linux.
Indeed they failed to foresee that scenario, whether or not that is 'good' is purely subjective (I certainly don't see what it is you think Linux gained from being used in Tivo), either way had that condition been a part of GPLv2 then likely Linus would simply have removed that condition and forked GPLv2 as it was the part of GPLv3 he took issue with.
> You say there is no revenue stream and yet you describe a revenue stream.
Non-obligatory donations is nothing like the licence-style revenue you mistakenly attributed to Tivo (of which there is none, I've certainly never seen any indication that Tivo paid the Linux foundation a single cent for using Linux), these companies could stop donating as they are not obliged to.
Of course this is not in reality any problem as Linus would be employed by a company rather than the Linux foundation in no-time, however it is likely better if he as project leader is not tied to any direct company. So this setup is likely favoured.
Meanwhile the vast majority of other full-time kernel developers are employed by companies.
> I'm sure IBM would do the same as TiVo if they were contracted to build some hardware
> that needed DRM.
I'm sure they would but I fail to see your point. Yes this was allowed in GPLv2 due to an oversight, Linus thinks this is a good 'loophole' as he only want the code back, and don't really care or atleast doesn't care that much about the other end user rights which GPL sets to uphold. This is perfectly valid.
FSF who crafted GPL on the other hand, did so in order to provide these end user rights to recipients of GPL licenced software, so from their equally valid standpoint it's a loophole that need so be fixed, hence GPLv3.
Again they (GPLv2, GPLv3) are both options you can choose between for your code, or if you want to leave that choice up to your end users you can use the GPLvx 'or later' clause as is often the case.
> I don't know who is responsible for the kernel DRM
> whether it's TiVo or the hardware partners.
There's no DRM in the Tivo Linux kernel (which of course would then be modified source code which would have to be released as per GPLv2), it likely a locked bootloader style protection which will only load a kernel which has been signed by Tivo and not accept anything else, as such making the hardware a brick beyond Tivo use.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Spelunker]
#316224 - 10/21/13 09:19 AM
|
|
|
> > He did have it in mind since the last discussion about changing the license (which
> > did change the license to the current one). There however was a big push to try to
> > force everyone to BSD license their code or have it replaced.
>
> Well, I certainly don't like the idea of trying to force a vast licence change upon
> contributors, particularly from a position of power followed by a threat of 'accept
> or be replaced', so if that was indeed the case then I find it a case of real poor
> conduct.
>
> Typically these types of actions only come into play when the instigator know full
> and well that the majority will be against his/her proposition. I think it's 'shitty'
> to say the least if your description of events is apt.
the big push had been shifted towards a "core under BSD and drivers under GPL" proposal before the drama leaked outside the mailing list discussion 
|
|
|
| Big Karnak |
|
Part-time Lurker
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/22/13
|
|
Posts: 1011
|
|
Loc: Mount St. Lurkling
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: etabeta]
#316225 - 10/21/13 10:14 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
the big push had been shifted towards a "core under BSD and drivers under GPL" proposal before the drama leaked outside the mailing list discussion
Who was the dev who leaked the drama?
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Big Karnak]
#316226 - 10/21/13 10:42 AM
|
|
|
> Who was the dev who leaked the drama?
Come on, surely by now you know exactly who it is who stirs up all the emudrama.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Matty_]
#316230 - 10/21/13 03:41 PM
|
|
|
Mame will continue to be free, to be the owner to convert the emulator.
The problem may not be that someone can hack the game and set them free on the internet.
It is the philosophy of the emulation scene.
If for example you pass the emulators have paid in smartphones made with other people's code.
I sincerely hope that this is only a big match of the day Halloween.
And that for November the emulator MAME continue to do their work normally.
I pray for this storm is just passing through, this is the worst ever in the world.
Still always looking for people behind the pocket of those who truly love MAME.
As a fan 100% (since my childhood) I sincerely hope that MAME joys make a lot of fans in the future.
We have to fight for our civil rights. 
Note: Very sorry for the bad English, i was using a translator by Portuguese to English.
I read the Portuguese Source here: http://aglomeradonews.com.br/games/o-fim-do-mame/
|
|
|
| Big Karnak |
|
Part-time Lurker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/22/13
|
|
Posts: 1011
|
|
Loc: Mount St. Lurkling
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Matty_]
#316246 - 10/22/13 05:22 AM
|
|
|
> > Who was the dev who leaked the drama?
>
> Come on, surely by now you know exactly who it is who stirs up all the emudrama.
If you are referring to Haze, as for as I know he's not on the mailing list, so he couldn't have been the one to leak the drama.
|
|
|
Mr. Do |
|
MAME Art Editor
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 4876
|
|
Loc: California
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Big Karnak]
#316247 - 10/22/13 06:22 AM
|
|
|
> > > Who was the dev who leaked the drama?
> >
> > Come on, surely by now you know exactly who it is who stirs up all the emudrama.
>
> If you are referring to Haze, as for as I know he's not on the mailing list, so he
> couldn't have been the one to leak the drama.
When the discussion first started, it was mentioned to him by someone on the list.
At that point, he was only receiving partial information about the discussion taking place.
He made assumptions based on partial facts and personal feelings.
He then posted his one-sided view on his public blog, and caused the current internet uproar.
So yes, someone on the list included him in on the discussion, at which point it was still private. He's the one that decided to make it public, so yeah, he leaked it.
|
RELAX and just have fun. Remember, it's all about the games.
|
|
|
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: Spelunker]
#316248 - 10/22/13 07:31 AM
|
|
|
> FSF who crafted GPL on the other hand, did so in order to provide these end user
> rights to recipients of GPL licenced software, so from their equally valid standpoint
> it's a loophole that need so be fixed, hence GPLv3.
Calling it a loophole would indicate that the intention of the GPLv2 was clear and that the implementation could be worked around. Yet I can't see anything in v2 that suggests that the end user has to be able to run modified GPL software on any hardware that uses GPL software.
We can't tell what would happen if v2 had included that language as TiVo would not have used Linux, so Linus might not have even thought about it.
The FSF are also pretty lax about their definition of system libraries, to the point that TiVo could hide modifications to GPL software in there. They are providing a system so they can create as many system libraries as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
Re: Regarding the illegal seller drama....
[Re: s_bastian]
#316249 - 10/22/13 07:45 AM
|
|
|
> Am I the only one here that believe everybody is missing the main point? I mean:
> illegal sellers don't care a shit about selling MAME. They sell because they give you
> ROMs with an emulator capable of running them, for people too lazy to google them by
> themselves.
The only time I've seen the illegal seller brought up is by the people who give that as a reason to switch to BSD.
The drama was the "relicense all your code or face having it rewritten" and then making it look like the only option was BSD.
Their argument for BSD is like taking all the locks off your house because a lock smith can get into your house anyway. Which as you point out is invalid.
|
|
|
|
Re: Why not put it to a vote?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#316250 - 10/22/13 07:52 AM
|
|
|
> What people are mostly concerned about is firstly universities and museums being able
> to use the software without crapping in their pants
They can use the software, they just can't redistribute it. The only reason I can come up with for why the paper excluded our license but allowed closed source commercial software was that they intended to bundle the emulators in a commercial product.
Edited by smf (10/22/13 07:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316251 - 10/22/13 07:57 AM
|
|
|
> One concrete example: back when our ST-V/Saturn support was useless I politely asked
> Yabause to allow us to use their code. They declined because they felt the GPL
> protected them better than the current MAME license, and so Kale and I ended up
> reinventing tens of thousands of lines of code, much of which is still buggy today.
In which case I think the license has served a good purpose.
> We could've put that effort towards supporting more games or other more useful
> things, but we weren't able to.
Like more copy and pasting of other peoples code into MAME/MESS for glory?
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: etabeta]
#316252 - 10/22/13 08:00 AM
|
|
|
> the big push had been shifted towards a "core under BSD and drivers under GPL"
> proposal before the drama leaked outside the mailing list discussion
Actually the core under BSD and drivers under GPL was proposed first. The everything should be BSD came from RB while that was being discussed because he got bored because we were taking too long to discuss it.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Mr. Do]
#316253 - 10/22/13 08:05 AM
|
|
|
> He made assumptions based on partial facts and personal feelings.
>
> He then posted his one-sided view on his public blog, and caused the current internet
> uproar.
His opinion wasn't one sided and AFAIK it did reflect accurately what was going on with the discussion on the list at the time he posted his original statement.
He didn't know that forcing everyone to relicense their code as BSD or it will be rewritten went down like a lead balloon.
|
|
|
|
Re: Regarding the illegal seller drama....
[Re: ]
#316254 - 10/22/13 08:44 AM
|
|
|
My point, as clearly stated in the post title, was directly referred to the "illegal MAME sellers" issue. Not to the "change of code licence" by itself. Saying that a commercial-use compliant licence will lead to the spread of unpunished ROM seller is IMO nonsense because ROM sellers will go on doing it no matter what licence MAME will use.
I'm not telling anything regarding the implications to coders this change will bring, as an user I am not allowed to tell my opinion, or at least, that does not count, as Smittdogg says :P (actually, I'm no way tech enough to properly understand the whole matter, so I am not commenting on this subject). All I understood is that this is now more a "political" issue than a "techical" issue, so devs must find an agreement between themselves. The only thing I am sure about is that, no matter what choice will be done, it will NO WAY affect the illegal ROM sellers (and again, please notice that I speak of ROM sellers, not MAME sellers, because THAT is what they do...)
|
The first Italian MAME resource at
www.progettoemma.net
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: ]
#316256 - 10/22/13 11:50 AM
|
|
|
> > He made assumptions based on partial facts and personal feelings.
> >
> > He then posted his one-sided view on his public blog, and caused the current
> internet
> > uproar.
>
> His opinion wasn't one sided and AFAIK it did reflect accurately what was going on
> with the discussion on the list at the time he posted his original statement.
>
> He didn't know that forcing everyone to relicense their code as BSD or it will be
> rewritten went down like a lead balloon.
First of all, he has contributed to a large number of drivers, so his opinion cannot just be ignored when it comes to a change of license of code. But I think he posted his first rant when any treat of BSD-or-remove had already been replaced by a dual licensing proposal, and one of his points was about "commercial potential" of MAME, as if the change of license was targeted to start selling the emulator instead of continuing with source-available project as is now (but he removed his original post before I could read the whole of it, so I cannot state exactly how prominent this was in his argument). Stating that his post did reflect what was going on with the discussion is plain wrong, given that nothing about making the emulator commercial was suggested ever...
He might have not been kept up-to-date with the discussion when he posted, but no one can be really blamed for this: in the end he was the one refusing to re-join the mailing list when asked.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: ]
#316257 - 10/22/13 11:51 AM
|
|
|
> > One concrete example: back when our ST-V/Saturn support was useless I politely
> asked
> > Yabause to allow us to use their code. They declined because they felt the GPL
> > protected them better than the current MAME license, and so Kale and I ended up
> > reinventing tens of thousands of lines of code, much of which is still buggy today.
>
> In which case I think the license has served a good purpose.
which good purpose? re-inventing the wheel instead of focusing on bugfixes?
EDIT: to elaborate a bit, sharing code with other projects is neither good nor bad per se (sometimes I get irritated by the black&white simplifications done in this discussion).
if you don't control what you merge, the source could easily become an unreadable mess, but if you make good use of what others offer the inclusion might add value to the project
Edited by etabeta (10/22/13 12:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: joey35car]
#316258 - 10/22/13 12:44 PM
|
|
|
Actually this is intersting.
From a programmers point of view I can see the trouble being discussed.
However, this also got me thinking about some other aspects.
As some may know, I'm part of a arcade and pinball museum.
We got about 200 machines running, and quite the same amount "to do".
So I got a WingWar machine which was submerged underwater for quite some time.
The boardset was damaged beyound repair, so I "MAMEd" it. Part of this process led to some "interesting developments" regarding network emulation.
My point is, now that I think of it, I'm unsure if that use of MAME is violating the license. And I'm not talking about the ROM issue - I was able to dump my boards.
|
I do all that stuff even without a Joystick
Soft-15kHz, cabMAME, For Amusement Only e.V.
|
|
|
Re: Regarding the illegal seller drama....
[Re: s_bastian]
#316260 - 10/22/13 01:47 PM
|
|
|
> Saying that a
> commercial-use compliant licence will lead to the spread of unpunished ROM seller is
> IMO nonsense because ROM sellers will go on doing it no matter what licence MAME will
> use.
And I'm saying that this was never an issue that was raised.
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: etabeta]
#316261 - 10/22/13 01:50 PM
|
|
|
> But I think he posted
> his first rant when any treat of BSD-or-remove had already been replaced by a dual
> licensing proposal,
The dual license proposal came first, then the BSD or remove was bait switched in & then haze posted. What followed then was the "find out what license people want to license their own code proposal".
I am not in the habit of defending Haze
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: etabeta]
#316262 - 10/22/13 01:56 PM
|
|
|
> but if you make good use of what others offer the inclusion might add value to
> the project
This basically never happens. You need someone who knows the code inside out to keep working on it and the person who copy & pasted it is too busy being lazy.
Like how ZiNc didn't support Tekken until MAME did it, there are plenty of other situations where a console emulator won't work for arcade games. If we'd just taken the spaghetti code and merged it in then I doubt anyone would ever bothered.
Copy & pasting usually ends up as a dead end.
|
|
|
|
Re: Why not put it to a vote?
[Re: ]
#316264 - 10/22/13 03:01 PM
|
|
|
It's been years since I looked at the license but if it still says something along the lines of no commercial use, that could be interpreted as if I'm running a museum that charges an entry fee, I can't have a mame setup for paying guests to play on.
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The end? :(
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316268 - 10/22/13 05:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: ]
#316269 - 10/22/13 06:18 PM
|
|
|
I don't exactly understand how a dual license helps anything. If it turned it into an either/or situation then that would be one thing but if it's a do-both-simultaneously then how is that not even more restrictive? Sorry to be lazy but I'd rather have a couple of sentences from someone who has read the licenses (mamedev) than a guess from someone who will never read those or any other software license (myself).
|
|
|
|
Re: The end? :( (edited)
[Re: Smitdogg]
#316271 - 10/22/13 09:11 PM
|
|
|
> I don't exactly understand how a dual license helps anything. If it turned it into an
> either/or situation then that would be one thing but if it's a do-both-simultaneously
> then how is that not even more restrictive? Sorry to be lazy but I'd rather have a
> couple of sentences from someone who has read the licenses (mamedev) than a guess
> from someone who will never read those or any other software license (myself).
Its supposed to be either-or; i.e. if a file is licensed MAME|LGPL-2.1+ you can use it as if it was under the MAME license OR as if that file alone was under the LGPL version 2.1 or later.
LN
|
"When life gives you zombies... *CHA-CHIK!* ...you make zombie-ade!"
|
|
|
Re: Why not put it to a vote?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#316283 - 10/23/13 03:21 AM
|
|
|
> It's been years since I looked at the license but if it still says something along
> the lines of no commercial use, that could be interpreted as if I'm running a museum
> that charges an entry fee, I can't have a mame setup for paying guests to play on.
I am not a lawyer but you should read docs/license.txt, I don't believe it says that at all.
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
I call dibs on any code that says "Winners Dont Use Drugs" <nt>
[Re: joey35car]
#316656 - 11/01/13 03:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: I call dibs on any code that says "Winners Dont Use Drugs"
[Re: italie]
#316660 - 11/01/13 10:28 AM
|
|
|
But they do, cf Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, etc.
|
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6125
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Haze go away or leave the rest of the team alone. Plan simple.
[Re: joey35car]
#316663 - 11/01/13 01:25 PM
|
|
|
|
W11 Home 64-bit + Nobara OS / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.59 GHz / RAM 64 GB
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: I call dibs on any code that says "Winners Dont Use Drugs"
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#316723 - 11/02/13 08:18 AM
|
|
|
> But they do, cf Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, etc.
Only because there are no longer arcades around to warn them against it. I don't recall any of them doping in the early 90's...
|
|
|
|
Re: in response to academia and some museums with opinion of:
[Re: etabeta]
#316728 - 11/02/13 11:09 AM
|
|
|
> would the ticket you charge visitors be considered a commercial use? would you risk
> in any case to be sued, when you can choose a different emulator, released under
> GPL/BSD license, without the need to contact MESS developers to clarify if it's
> commercial use or not?
IANAL but the commercial use clause only covers redistributions. So if you aren't redistributing MESS/MAME then I don't see how your point is relevant.
|
|
|
|
Re: I call dibs on any code that says "Winners Dont Use Drugs"
[Re: italie]
#316729 - 11/02/13 11:10 AM
|
|
|
> > But they do, cf Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, etc.
>
> Only because there are no longer arcades around to warn them against it. I don't
> recall any of them doping in the early 90's...
You only hadn't heard because they hadn't been exposed yet. Are you William Sessions?
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: I call dibs on any code that says "Winners Dont Use Drugs"
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#316740 - 11/02/13 02:02 PM
|
|
|
> > > But they do, cf Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, etc.
> >
> > Only because there are no longer arcades around to warn them against it. I don't
> > recall any of them doping in the early 90's...
>
> You only hadn't heard because they hadn't been exposed yet. Are you William Sessions?
Depends, are you a
|
|
|
|
Re: in response to academia and some museums with opinion of:
[Re: ]
#316809 - 11/03/13 08:35 AM
|
|
|
> > would the ticket you charge visitors be considered a commercial use? would you risk
> > in any case to be sued, when you can choose a different emulator, released under
> > GPL/BSD license, without the need to contact MESS developers to clarify if it's
> > commercial use or not?
>
> IANAL but the commercial use clause only covers redistributions. So if you aren't
> redistributing MESS/MAME then I don't see how your point is relevant.
from my (very limited) experience with legal offices in public institutions, any non-standard license on software can trigger paranoid doubts. if the person in charge is serious, it would just contact the developers to clarify the matter. if the person is lazy and an alternative choice with standard license is available, the answer can easily be "go for the standard"
this was not the case with the paper which triggered the discussion (they ended up using closed source emulators, so our license could not have been the real issue), but I was talking in general: any deviation from standard OSI-licenses is often seen as source of troubles...
I don't pretend it to be relevant for MAME, but it's happened to my former colleague at university so it's not unheard of
|
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
Re: Similar to Linux kernel relicense discussion
[Re: 
Reply
What is needed is each contributor's permission, not their votes.
