MAMEWorld Forums - News - Re: ARCADE64 0.249.0

> > in one of the files I'm attributed to
>
> I noticed you added yourself a few days ago in preparation for this. An examination
> of commits over the last 15 years reveals that you have made no changes in that time
> so I'd call it fraud.
>

Again, this is a lie, an attempt to discredit me. The fix for the football billboards is a fix I legitimately made. The game sets rowscroll values that set it outside the usual tilemap area for that game - I strongly suspect in the certain tilemap modes the tilemaps are actually paged, and that becomes a 'select' bit rather than a scroll bit. As this is code I wrote, I can easily explain the thought pattern that went into it.

I did think I'd also made a fix for the clipping windows on some other games (Command War?) but maybe there were other issues, as it doesn't look like I submitted that.

This was independent research, and my own implementation, which had been overlooked when the credits were initially added to the header. MameDev had no problem accepting this missing accreditation when it was noticed.

> > Once again, I point out the taito_f3 mods blah blah blah
>
> I'll say again, you are neither a policeman nor a lawyer, so your personal legal
> views have no merit.
>

GPL / BSD is well understood, you don't need to be a policeman or a lawyer to understand them. They're things people in the industry deal with every single day. They exist as standard licenses to make it easier for ordinary people to understand how code should be used/what it is compatible with, and act appropriately. See also the comment from Vas.

It is deeply concerning that you, as maintainer of a fork, seem to not think this important. Either you are playing dumb, are genuinely unaware of how source licenses work, or are causing trouble on purpose. Any of those would make you grossly unsuited to the role.

I've also had some people say you've struck a dodgy deal with the FBN maintainers to have code from FBN exclusively in Arcade but not MAME. Again, even the most basic understanding of software licenses would tell you that such exclusive agreements aren't even possible.

> > Since you've now published this, I think the only next option left is that I report
> > the violation to Github.
>
> Rule 5: Do NOT harass, verbally abuse, or threaten other visitors!
> Last warning.

Nobody is harassing anybody, aside some of your users going after me because of the incitement by playing the victim on your part. I'm here pointing out a license violation that _needs_ to be addressed (commenting out code is not addressing it, it's still there) Your refusal to address it, repeatedly, as well as the constant blame shifting, does mean I'm escalating it.

I've already contacted the other mods here about any potential abuse of power from you over this, as was the case on Github.