> I think Daphne has hit a technical brick wall
Out of curiosity, in what way(s) do you see that being the case?
> and if Mame was licensed under the
> GPL, Matt can continue expanding Daphne with the use of the cores Mame could offer,
To be perfectly honest, I can't even find which licence DAPHNE has been released under - and if someone could clarify this for me, it would certainly be appreciated for the sake of my understanding.
Assuming that there is one (which I imagine there would be), it may be entirely incompatible with the MAME license, GPL, BSD, or other standard ones. Just because MAME's licence may change does not mean that it will automatically be compatible with those used by another project.
Further, there are FOSS cores out there that are available under the GPL and other non-MAME licences; these may be suitable for use in other projects where the MAME licence was not considered acceptable.
> including all the LDP work gathered and technical experience.
Which is documented in the source and elsewhere. There is nothing preventing anyone looking at those documents and re-implementing the ideas contained therein without reusing MAME code; this may be done under whatever licence they choose for their own project.
> The benefits outweigh the negatives for all concerned in the emulation community, and
> Daphne is a good example.
Possibly not - at least, possibly not in the specific case of DAPHNE. Some components within DAPHNE may not make it possible to open-source the project; I'm specifically thinking of anything related to decryption of the Digital Leisure DVDs. However, I'll let Matt speak to that one as I am by no means qualified to make a judgement regarding it.
Matt did touch on this (albeit tangentally) in a recent blog post of his, which was also referenced earlier in this thread. I'd recommend giving it a look.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: My take on the MAME licensing controversy (from Daphne author)
Reply
