> 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
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.
Consider it high comedy....sincere tragedy....whatever...don't take it personally.
The Culture
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Scott posted Doug Macrae (GCC) presentation at CAX 2010
Reply
