MAME licence

[mcr]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Forgive me if this post comes across as dumb, i've been out of the loop
for a while...

Why did MAMEDev make the licence so 'open' then explain that they
preferred it if the licence were not abused etc... ie: why didnt they
just make the licence more restrictive?

Also...

Is the licence retro-active... ie: will it apply only to 0.96 and
further on or does it apply to all MAME builds?

conversly...

If the licence is only going to apply to 0.96 onwards, does that
imply/mean that derirative builds that were in existance before 0.96 can
keep their MAME name?

The licence indicates that tools like clrmamepro (clrrompro?!?) cannot
have the MAME name. This needs some clarification, to exclude
clrmamepro would mean a paradox as it clearly violates the licence.

Why have an open licence and a restrictive terms of use?

Things were better as they were before, ambiguous yet free. However
this may give MAMEDev more power, but it also legally ties them more if
there are any legal problems/issues.

A message to MAMEDev

"Keep up the good work, I love MAME"
--
MAME(TM) - History In The Making...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

MCR <mcr@lazarusnospam.org.uk> wrote in news:d38llc$3vh$1@news.wplus.net:

> The licence indicates that tools like clrmamepro (clrrompro?!?) cannot
> have the MAME name. This needs some clarification, to exclude
> clrmamepro would mean a paradox as it clearly violates the licence.

ClrMAME can keep it's license because the devs like Roman. Occasionally
he contributes stuff to the cause. This was covered in a recent thread
on MameWorld's forums.

--
Do you want a free Gaming Console?
http://consoles.prizecube.com/?ref=12216

 

[mcr]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Peale wrote:
> MCR <mcr@lazarusnospam.org.uk> wrote in news:d38llc$3vh$1@news.wplus.net:
>
>
>>The licence indicates that tools like clrmamepro (clrrompro?!?) cannot
>>have the MAME name. This needs some clarification, to exclude
>>clrmamepro would mean a paradox as it clearly violates the licence.
>
>
> ClrMAME can keep it's license because the devs like Roman. Occasionally
> he contributes stuff to the cause. This was covered in a recent thread
> on MameWorld's forums.
>

OK. But isnt that a little 'jobs for the boys' in attitude or 'if your
face fits'? Not having a go at MAMEDev or Roman by any means, but if
the licence is being violated by MAMEDev from the get-go, how are we
supposed to feel about Kof2010MAME.NET?

I think the licence needs some work.

To sum it up...

It allows more freedom with the code, but MAMEDev might not like it
It restricts the use of the name MAME, enforcable in law, but we
(MAMEDev) pick the exclusions, so we are allowed to be selective.

I say enforce the licence 100%, change it to reflect MAMEDevs goals or
scrap it. You cannot have an illogical licence.

Theoretically if MAMEDev wanted to defend their IP, they would be eaten
alive just from the examples I have given. No distrespect to MAMEDev
intended, I wish you the best of luck.
--
MAME(TM) - History In The Making...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

MCR schrieb:
> Peale wrote:

To make it short...
There is no problem.

 

[mcr]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Roman Scherzer wrote:
> MCR schrieb:
>
>> Peale wrote:
>
>
> To make it short...
> There is no problem.

Thanks for the clarification! sorta! Didnt wanna sound like a kof2009
kiddie, I just thought the licence needs tightening or some idiots legal
team is going to tear it apart.

--
MAME(TM) - History In The Making...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On 2005-04-09, MCR <mcr@lazarusnospam.org.uk> wrote:
> Why did MAMEDev make the licence so 'open' then explain that they
> preferred it if the licence were not abused etc... ie: why didnt they
> just make the licence more restrictive?

Because the code is important, and we'd rather have a non-stupid
license on it. Only for people like you Mame is only about the games.
For programmers it's also about the cpu cores, the sound cores, etc...
Having a decent license that allows to reuse them without having
Mame-specific rider conditions is much, much better.


> Is the licence retro-active... ie: will it apply only to 0.96 and
> further on or does it apply to all MAME builds?

The previous license did not have anything about retroactive changes,
so it's only for 0.96 onwards.


> If the licence is only going to apply to 0.96 onwards, does that
> imply/mean that derirative builds that were in existance before 0.96 can
> keep their MAME name?

No. Copyright and trademark are totally independant matters.


> Why have an open licence and a restrictive terms of use?

Open license on the code, restrictive terms of use on the name. I
can't see any better way to allow other programmers to do things with
the code while clearly taking a stance against things we don't want to
be done with Mame itself.

OG.

 

[mcr]

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

Olivier Galibert wrote:
Snipped

> Open license on the code, restrictive terms of use on the name. I
> can't see any better way to allow other programmers to do things with
> the code while clearly taking a stance against things we don't want to
> be done with Mame itself.
>
> OG.

Thanks for the clarification OG. Although it is true I use MAME(tm) to
play the games, I do appreciate what the MAME team are trying to
achieve. I didnt want the above post to appear 'bitter' or anything, I
was just curious.
--
MAME(TM) - History In The Making...