Though Kevin Eshbach's answer (an answer I suspected before posting) is probably correct, I'm re-posting the question I recently made in the original thread, because I missed that the thread wasn't in MAMEChat:
Did anyone notice the Jr. Pac-Man level he showed there (23:36)? I don't think that's in the game.
Also, regarding Macrae's talk in general, how fascinating. It really clears up a lot of things, in particular, the whole [obviously] urban legend that Mspac was an unauthorized bootleg that Midway somehow got away with, etc.
It surprised me to find out that Mspac in original arcade form wasn't released in Japan - Macrae suspecting it having been a pride issue of Namco's. Funny.
And, last but not least: he mentions the existence of Crazy Otto in MAME (or, rather, Misfit....), and talks of wanting to 'get it out there in some free manner'. This is almost comical, given that the license/copyright issue is probably an ultimate show-stopper (as Macrae intimates); and that MAME is GNU and essentially 'word-of-mouth'. Meaning that it may likely never get to the masses.
Consider it high comedy....sincere tragedy....whatever...don't take it personally.
> > show-stopper (as Macrae intimates); and that MAME is GNU and essentially > > 'word-of-mouth'. Meaning that it may likely never get to the masses. > > MAME is not GNU
> > > show-stopper (as Macrae intimates); and that MAME is GNU and essentially > > > 'word-of-mouth'. Meaning that it may likely never get to the masses. > > > > MAME is not GNU > > MNG, then.
LOL.
It's more fair at this point to say "it's BSD with a non-commercial use clause" IIRC. But yeah, it's its own license.
> > > > show-stopper (as Macrae intimates); and that MAME is GNU and essentially > > > > 'word-of-mouth'. Meaning that it may likely never get to the masses. > > > > > > MAME is not GNU > > > > MNG, then. > > LOL. > > It's more fair at this point to say "it's BSD with a non-commercial use clause" IIRC. > But yeah, it's its own license. > > - Stiletto
Okay - so then, even worsely, right?
Consider it high comedy....sincere tragedy....whatever...don't take it personally.
> > Okay - so then, even worsely, right? > > How so?
Put another way: barring some socialist revolution, who's going to [be able to] 'market' it?
And, incidentally I just now found this seemingly relevant quote of yours on the main page:
"MAME is not open source by either the FSF or OSD versions of the term. It's BSD licensed with a 'no commercial usage' clause, which makes it incompatible with the GPL and several other licenses."
- R. Belmont
I looked all these up, but a first reading didn't allow me to see how they might contradict.
Consider it high comedy....sincere tragedy....whatever...don't take it personally.
> Put another way: barring some socialist revolution, who's going to [be able to] 'market' it?
OH... okay. You mean that people selling legal ROMs commercially and MAME's non-commercial use clause don't mix? Nope, not true. Example: StarROMS.com (of course, they're dead, and Atari may have been over-reaching with their claim to copyright...)
If you can get a license to resell ROMs... like Macrae theoretically could if there wasn't the license/copyright issue... then you can use them with MAME. (Although you shouldn't 'market' it that way or the MAME trademark will come into effect...) But you could say "for use with your original arcade board" or something. Or whatever. Admittedly, the potential audience is very small...
You just can't sell MAME, or its source code. And you can't provide MAME "for free" with your commercial product. Or reuse code w/o permission in commercial products. Or...
> I looked all these up, but a first reading didn't allow me to see how they might > contradict.
In short, many licenses like the GPL _permit_ commercial sales/use provided that the source remains available.
MAMEDEV, in general, doesn't even want _that_.
[EDIT] A further explanation, although not to start an argument over the meaning of "open source" and the validity and worthwhile-ness of licenses, and I'm summarizing quite a deal:
"Open source" according to organizations like the FSF basically means "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer". As you can see by (at this point) this one remaining clause in MAME's license makes it not "open" by their definition, since you're not free to do with the source code everything you want (sell binaries and/or source or use in a commercial product w/o permission)
Honestly, it took a while for me to understand all this. (I still bear the scars to prove it...) It's a tricky thing... In fact, I would not be surprised if I were still "wrong" in what I wrote above, by summarizing too much or something like that... Lawyers care about the details...
Most MAMEDEV who are license-knowledgeable prefer the term "source-available". It doesn't have those connotations...
-----------
Why do you keep asking about this? Are you planning on marketing arcade cabinets? Or are you just trying to "gotcha" the MAMEDEV's?
>talks of wanting to 'get it out there in some free manner'.
If they REALLY want it out there like that, they could simply put up a free-rom download site like Gaelco's World Rally, tied with either a simple single emulator (like Sil's Single Emulators), if not just hand a dump over to MAME to begin with. There must be reasons they are holding back.
EDIT: BTW MAMEDev website still could benefit from a link to the World Rally download.
As has been said, the reason is: - the origination where the ROM dump would come from is eminently traceable, which matters because - Namco, Midway and them go WAY back - and also that they're trying to do it the right and legal way, which will take a long time and potentially fail
If it was a long-lost prototype that the original developer LOST (ex: Bouncer) then this would be less of an issue...
> > talks of wanting to 'get it out there in some free manner'. > > If they REALLY want it out there like that, they could simply put up a free-rom > download site like Gaelco's World Rally, tied with either a simple single emulator > (like Sil's Single Emulators), if not just hand a dump over to MAME to begin with. > There must be reasons they are holding back. > > EDIT: BTW MAMEDev website still could benefit from a link to the World Rally > download.
> Put another way: barring some socialist revolution, who's going to [be able to] > 'market' it?
I guess I don't understand how that's a problem. Indeed, if you believe the occasional prophets of doom, all the major Japanese arcade companies are simply waiting for any whiff of MAMEdev making money to sue us into atoms. (Very poor atoms, at that).
If you mean marketing in terms of advertising and popularizing MAME, that can be done without the program being for sale. So I'm confused.
> I looked all these up, but a first reading didn't allow me to see how they might > contradict.
Because contrary to popular misconception, the GPL is not socialist. You are explicitly allowed to sell binaries of GPL software for money, you simply also must make the source available on request (the existence of Linux distros should make this obvious). Similarly, the Open Source Definition requires that compliant licenses allow the binaries to be sold.
> As has been said, the reason is: > - the origination where the ROM dump would come from is eminently traceable
Dateline CAX: Scott and Doug, while returning from their presentations, and carrying the very valuable and rare Crazy Otto rom chips in a sack, where mugged that evening by what some described as a "Transformer Robot" or some other robotic super-villian. Witnesses say the mugger was polite, but very intimidating, so they handed the chips over, and ran. Witnesses on the scene say there seemed to be some chemistry between the mugger and his victims, based on a wink they saw exchanged. Working with police sketch artists, experts were able to draw up this sketch of the suspect:
The perpetrator vanished into the night without a trace. Shortly after the mugging, a dump of the rare roms began popping up all over the internet, and quickly went viral. Tracing the dump back to it's original post will prove impossible. While some feel the incident is a tragedy, others feel like it was the work of a hero vigilanty. Perhaps suffering from a moment of remorse, the original roms were shortly thereafter mailed back to Scott and Doug. While sorted and clouded in mystery, all's well that ends well.
The reason is clear. They have a history of suing Namco over Namco's own copyright that they hacked up in a garage and somehow winning, including just a few years ago over the reunion game. Probably the only way they won that one is because of the agreement reached in the lawsuit in the early 80's which they clearly should not have won. Imagine if the same thing happened today and someone hacked up World of Warcraft into World of CrazyCraft and started selling it. It's ridiculous. Anyway, since the reunion suit, Namco has been sending out cease letters to anyone who infringes on Pac-Man and of course they would probably like revenge on GCC at this point. It's really their own fault in a way, they were too lazy to keep fighting over it in the early 80's.
>the lawsuit in the early 80's which they clearly should not have won.
I dunno... I'm no expeert, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express... and since they weren't distruibuting proprietary code (you still had to have a pacman cabinet), but instead merely an add-on board... which introduced new ideas and concepts... I think it's all fine and dandy.
In contrast, I think today's inturpretation is bogus... where a title claims copyright on any modification to their game... really? How so? Unless you own the rights to the actual machine language/platform... how can you claim rights to code that isn't written by you? That's like Automakers claiming rights to aftermarket modifications to it's stock muscle cars. SEMA, look out!
> > the lawsuit in the early 80's which they clearly should not have won. > > I dunno... I'm no expeert, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express... and since they > weren't distruibuting proprietary code (you still had to have a pacman cabinet), but > instead merely an add-on board... which introduced new ideas and concepts... I think > it's all fine and dandy.
I guess if it's just an added piece of hardware it's more gray than flat out bootlegging, but let's face it, it's just a trick to skirt the law. And surely their upgrade kit contained some original Pac-Man code? How could it not? Even if it replaced graphics roms completely, they weren't written from scratch, they were edited. The part where they got partial ownership of Ms., Jr. and whatever else crossed the line to me as well. I think it's mostly a matter of Namco being lazy and not making an official upgrade. Like it would have taken them very long to add a bow, a title screen update, swap the mazes around and add speed. Then it would have outsold the crap out of Crazy Otto.
> In contrast, I think today's inturpretation is bogus... where a title claims > copyright on any modification to their game... really? How so? Unless you own the > rights to the actual machine language/platform... how can you claim rights to code > that isn't written by you? That's like Automakers claiming rights to aftermarket > modifications to it's stock muscle cars. SEMA, look out!
I guess people should hack up games today and sell their changes as diff files then and see what happens. It probably won't make much difference to me either way.
> > I guess people should hack up games today and sell their changes as diff files then > and see what happens. It probably won't make much difference to me either way.
AFAIK, that's what they do with the snes Mario hacks and such, and there is no problem in doing so...
> > > > I guess people should hack up games today and sell their changes as diff files then > > and see what happens. It probably won't make much difference to me either way. > > AFAIK, that's what they do with the snes Mario hacks and such, and there is no > problem in doing so...
I wasn't aware people were selling things like this, but it isn't the same thing as I was talking about anyway. I meant games currently being sold, like Pac-Man was when this lawsuit took place.
> > AFAIK, that's what they do with the snes Mario hacks and such, and there is no > > problem in doing so... > > "no problem doing so" does not imply approval by the rightsholders, just a lack of > bucks to throw at lawyers.
Well, they are distributed in the open without anyone having much problem with it; I mean that they are being hosted in the open, in multiple public and personal sites, etc. And this is Nintendo, which even at least a popular torrent site doesn't want to distribute torrents for Nintendo systems. I guess there must be some legal protection in doing so.
> I wasn't aware people were selling things like this, but it isn't the same thing as I > was talking about anyway. I meant games currently being sold, like Pac-Man was when > this lawsuit took place.
No selling AFAIK, not sure if that would do a difference from a legal standpoint, probably yes...
That's definitely a guess. It's probably more based on Nintendo not wanting to turn some of their fans against them by looking like greedy heartless Mr. Burnses. But that's also a guess.
>They have a history of suing Namco over Namco's own copyright
If you take Doug's explanation at face value, then that's not the case. GCC invented Ms. and Jr. and thus have a legal claim to them. Sure they are derivative of the original but that doesn't mean their claim is without merit.
I haven't seen this one yet, I was basing my responses on a previous one I saw, but on the surface that sounds just as bad or worse. Watch as I display some GCC style brilliance. Take Dig-Dug and hack it to where he wears a skirt and the game is faster. That's Ms. Dig-Dug, boom. Change the enemies and swap it out to where you can enter the right side of the screen from the left edge and vice versa then blam it's Dig-Dug Jr., sue Namco again... Super Mario's Uncle. Takes place in New York *splattou* sue the shit out of Nintendo on that bitch.
> I guess I don't understand how that's a problem...If you mean marketing in terms of advertising and popularizing MAME, that can be done without the program being for sale. So I'm confused.
No no. I meant, given that the rights to Crazy Otto are in some kind of limbo, and MAME is essentially an 'underground' movement (let alone Misfit MAME, which is actually where it's available), how would Crazy Otto be disseminated to the masses?
> > I looked all these up, but a first reading didn't allow me to see how they might > > contradict. > > Because contrary to popular misconception, the GPL is not socialist. You are > explicitly allowed to sell binaries of GPL software for money, you simply also must > make the source available on request (the existence of Linux distros should make this > obvious). Similarly, the Open Source Definition requires that compliant licenses > allow the binaries to be sold.
That misconception probaly comes from not reading the GPL and reading about what it really is.
So, looking back at the 'BSD template', it implies an open-source kind of circumstance, but doesn't directly address it. It also doesn't talk about usage, but implies the product can be used however, as long as the copyright notice remains in any variants, etc.
Seems to me the BSD is a streamlined version of open-source. OSI hosts a definition of it
> I haven't seen this one yet, I was basing my responses on a previous one I saw, but > on the surface that sounds just as bad or worse. Watch as I display some GCC style > brilliance. Take Dig-Dug and hack it to where he wears a skirt and the game is > faster. That's Ms. Dig-Dug, boom. Change the enemies and swap it out to where you can > enter the right side of the screen from the left edge and vice versa then blam it's > Dig-Dug Jr., sue Namco again... Super Mario's Uncle. Takes place in New York > *splattou* sue the shit out of Nintendo on that bitch.
You might want to watch this particular one, and come back. The story, if accurate, lays all the urban legends to rest. And while GCC had some very tight points on which they based their legal claims, the logic followed. This is what you get in a capitalist market.
>I haven't seen this one yet, I was basing my responses on a previous one I saw I would recommend watching the posted video then. There's no doubt that Doug has a certain bias to the whole thing but nothing he said sounded unreasonable.
My executive summary if you don't have time: GCC had an idea and implementation for a sequel which introduced a pac family. Namco had nothing, liked their idea, and bought it from them. Everyone made crap-tons of money. GCC eventually realized they had invented the family concept and, even if it was a derivative of the original, they were owed some compensation for all the non-arcade related products. The law was on their side. Namco forgot about the whole thing a few decades later and needed to be reminded by a court of law.
> > I guess I don't understand how that's a problem...If you mean marketing in terms of > advertising and popularizing MAME, that can be done without the program being for > sale. So I'm confused. > > No no. I meant, given that the rights to Crazy Otto are in some kind of limbo, and > MAME is essentially an 'underground' movement (let alone Misfit MAME, which is > actually where it's available), how would Crazy Otto be disseminated to the masses?
No, the "Crazy Otto" in Misfit is some replica made by Gatinho.
> > I haven't seen this one yet, I was basing my responses on a previous one I saw > I would recommend watching the posted video then. There's no doubt that Doug has a > certain bias to the whole thing but nothing he said sounded unreasonable. > > My executive summary if you don't have time: > GCC had an idea and implementation for a sequel which introduced a pac family. Namco > had nothing, liked their idea, and bought it from them. Everyone made crap-tons of > money. GCC eventually realized they had invented the family concept and, even if it > was a derivative of the original, they were owed some compensation for all the > non-arcade related products. The law was on their side. Namco forgot about the whole > thing a few decades later and needed to be reminded by a court of law.
Thanks for the exec sum. To be as fair as possible I'll watch it (not tonight though) and reply again later if my opinion changes, but here is my argument about this summary. I say this with no exaggeration at all. Anyone in the world could look at a video game character and have the idea to give them a family. The only reason it could have even seemed new is because Pac-Man was basically the first popular video game that used a character with a name. Any idiot in the world could look at a video game and have the idea to increase the speed it runs at. Any idiot in the world could look at a maze game and decide that in the sequel, the mazes should be altered. Any idiot in the world could look at a video game and decide in a sequel, some enemies should run in new patterns. I don't think Namco thought it out well or they could have dismissed Crazy Otto and made their own sequel and argued these points if GCC ever tried to sue them over them, which they wouldn't have done. These concepts are like common sense and I don't think GCC deserved tons of money for them. Even if they were more significant, like say, some gameplay changes done in SFII hacks, though, I still don't think they would deserve to be able to sue the company over merchandise etc. Namco made a poor and quick decision and are still paying for it. And even if the law technically is behind GCC, it doesn't sit well with me, it doesn't feel right, I don't think it's right, no matter what some judge said who had never played a video game in his life.
>Anyone in the world could... >Any idiot in the world could... > Any idiot in the world could... >Any idiot in the world could... look at a video game and decide in a >These concepts are like common sense...
All good points, but the same could be said for the hoola-hoop, the frisbee, the pet rock, "balance" bracelets. Bottom line is any idiot could have made these things... but only one smart idiot did. I agree Namco missed the boat.
But this idea is original, so I'll have exclusive rights to it... Pacman's cousin. Bam. Plush dolls, bracelets, bed sheets, towel sets, action figures... all that, and the royalties are MINE! I thought of it first... you coulda but didn't.
*edit* I cleaned that up, forgot this wasn't the Bin, heh.
They're only original ideas because there was no time to have thought of them prior. Pac-Man was the first popular video game with a named character in it. It couldn't have been done on a game prior to it and before Namco even worried about a sequel, they were beat to the punch bowl of common sense. Namco's hasty decision was one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in GCC's rambling, incoherent presentation were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in that room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award GCC no points, and may God have mercy on their soul.
> Seems to me the BSD is a streamlined version of open-source. OSI hosts a definition > of it > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php > > and doesn't contrast it with 'open-source', so I'm not seeing a 'conflict' per se.
Right, the "new" BSD license where you don't have to credit the Trustees of the University of California in every source file is pretty much the simplest open source license you can have.
MAME's variant of the license makes it not open source by restricting commercial use. Using the common terminology it's free as in beer, but not as in speech. (FSF would say it's "free but not libre").
> No no. I meant, given that the rights to Crazy Otto are in some kind of limbo, and > MAME is essentially an 'underground' movement (let alone Misfit MAME, which is > actually where it's available), how would Crazy Otto be disseminated to the masses?
INAL but I'm sure Namco, Bally Midway and GCC all own the rights so good luck in negotiating a deal.
GCC created families so they can sue whoever they want. They created Ms. and Jr. so they can sue the English language for crazy losses. They created speed so they can sue shitty drug dealers. Even 20 years later yall.
Index 
Threaded 
Re: Scott posted Doug Macrae (GCC) presentation at CAX 2010
Reply
[Re: 
