|
The Multiple License Conundrum
#316068 - 10/17/13 07:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The Multiple License Conundrum
[Re: Lewis King]
#316076 - 10/17/13 09:34 PM
|
|
|
As I posted below, this isn't a problem because MAME itself is not being relicensed and will continue to be distributed under the current license for the forseeable future.
Hence, every file in MAME with a tag for non-MAME licenses implicitly becomes multiply licensed as MAME+the other licenses, and a deco16 like conglomeration then gets licensed as the set of licenses that appear in all of the original component files, which will always be at least the MAME license. Combining MAME+BSD and MAME+LGPL source files the combination can legally be licensed just MAME, for instance.
Of course, it's a good idea to contact the original authors where possible in this kind of case.
|
|
|
|
Re: The Multiple License Conundrum
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316077 - 10/17/13 10:00 PM
|
|
|
You must admit that Haze has a point.
But if the team can clear things out and secure the safety of MAME's future, that's fine by me and do what changes need to be done.
In the end what we, the end-users, want is free MAME regular releases, the way it is now. The rest about licensing, etc.
are for the devs.
I hope that you will find a way to make everyone happy 
Best regards,
Daffy
Note: sorry for my bad english 
Edited by DaffyDuck (10/17/13 10:36 PM)
|
Daffy Duck
|
|
| Jred |
|
I gotta have more cowbell
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/27/04
|
|
Posts: 304
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: The Multiple License Conundrum
[Re: Lewis King]
#316377 - 10/25/13 05:46 PM
|
|
|
This title reminds me of a Big Bang Theory episode name
|
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
The Multiple License Conundrum
Reply
[Re: 
