> 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.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Scott posted Doug Macrae (GCC) presentation at CAX 2010
Reply
