|
So why did this annoy me so much?
#316273 - 10/22/13 10:04 PM
|
|
|
Another Haze rant:
http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/2013/10/22/so-why-did-this-annoy-me-so-much/
Since I don't have a lot of time these days, and since Haze has gone all-in in his attempts to make me into a monster intent on project/world destruction, even going so far as to post internal quotes from me out of context and without my permission, let me set a couple of things straight.
1. The MAME license is dumb. I should know, I wrote it (well, the non-boilerplate parts of it anyways). It was not written by a lawyer, contains language that is vague at best, and was done strictly to appease a subset of MAME devs a number of years ago when we last had a licensing discussion.
2. We are never going to enforce the license we have today. Apart from its questionable legality in the first place, nobody on the team cares enough about violations that they will pay out-of-pocket and add tons of stress to their lives in order to stop somebody from doing something we don't like. All we get is pointless whining about stuff with vague requests that we wish the magical fairly lawyers would get involved on our behalf. Not gonna happen.
3. It could be argued that our license today at least tells others how we would like the code to be used. Fair point. But that really don't belong in the license, because its being there only weakens the license overall, since it is untested and legally unvetted. We can still ask people to please not sell it commercially, outside of the legal framework of a license. It would have the same net effect (i.e., be completely unenforced), and would let us use a standard, lawyer-approved OSI license.
4. Using a standard, lawyer-approved OSI license, whether it be BSD or LGPL, has a number of advantages, namely that it has actually been written by people who know what they are doing, it has well-understood meaning to others, it would allow our code to be hosted on SourceForge or similar sites, and it would enable easier code sharing in both directions.
5. I did in fact say that IF there was a majority decision to move the project under a standard OSI license, that we could in theory go forward in spite of the objections of the non-majority by excluding the work they did and reimplementing it. Of course, it would suck to lose a lot of that work, but if there had been a strong agreement from the majority, then there was a way to make it happen. As it turns out, there was not a strong enough agreement to move forward in this agressive a manner, so the point is moot.
6. It is a common misconception that we can copyright our code to "The MAME Team." But the MAME Team is an amorphous, ever-changing, and non-legal entity. Thus, copyrights on the code in MAME can only be held by individuals. Because of this fact, and because there is disagreement on how the code should be licensed, there is never any hope of ever untangling the licensing mess until the files that make up MAME are attributed. Attribution is an annoying and messy business which I hope can eventually be automated.
7. It's easy to point and laugh at museums/academia as one of the many reasons why having a standard OSI license would be good. After all, what have they done for us? But honestly, why WOULDN'T we want them to use MAME/MESS as their starting point? What's to be gained by holding them back? What happens instead is they end up having to glue together dozens of other emulation platforms, some better, many worse, than MAME/MESS for dumb licensing reasons. Instead of a single emulator with a common interface, patrons, students, and researchers have to struggle with a half-assed concoction of random emulators. Nobody really wins in the end.
8. Beyond that, I personally think the project is a perfect fit as a PLATFORM for emulator development, not just for the end user. It was my goal during my tenure as project lead to push the core architecture toward a general platform that is reusable and easy to build upon. This is exactly why I prefer all my code to be BSD licensed, as I don't want any excuses for people not to build on it. And having rearchitected a majority of what constitutes the core over the last 15 years, we're not far away from having the core be entirely BSD in spite of the MAME license on the rest of the core.
In my ideal world, MAME/MESS are BSD (or LGPL) licensed and people freely make use of and build upon the work we've done. Since that ideal doesn't exist, I hope that instead we might be able to make the core and a subset of drivers approach that ideal.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316276 - 10/23/13 12:57 AM
|
|
|
Thank you for your side. We have been mostly seeing Hazes side. However, here is your problem in a nutshell.
I write this
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
if (x = y) printf("%d", x);
woops assignment inside of an if, you come along and change it to this
if (x == y) printf("%d", x);
Who 'owns' it? The answer is we both do under the eyes of the law. No matter how 'trivial' it is (you own an equals sign). A judge would not see it as 'trivial'. In fact you could argue that it radically changed the way the code works. Copyright does not work that way. At the company you work for now I am sure they have NDA's in place for many things. Those are there to say if this situation happens your company owns it. The companies I have worked for do similar things.
I am not sure you could change the license without finding everyone. Not without the possibility at some future point someone shutting you down. Not something I would want hanging over my project.
If you do manage that task may I suggest LGPL2 or more stringently GPL2. That would close down many of the problems that people have brought up. I have no skin in the game as it were. But BSD is a much weaker license. In that people can change your code and then not bother to tell you what they did. For this sort of project I think that is a bad idea.
I agree though changing it is probably a good idea. However, you will need to step very carefully. It is also something that can not happen overnight. It will take some time to track everyone down.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316278 - 10/23/13 01:27 AM
|
|
|
As it has been said solitude is the playground for resentment and Haze seems to have on top of that some psychological need to be treated as an outcast and martyr. I'm not making fun of him, just saying. He likes to get kicked off message boards and email lists and then turns down offers to come back. Before he was banned here he was sending me messages saying "just go ahead and ban me". I would reply "if you don't want to post here, just leave". Eventually twisty or someone else banned him after he tried his ass off to get banned. Later I offered to unban him and he turned down the offer. He's turned down the offer to return to the mamedev list. He asked me to remove him from the DU list after he got into one of the smallest arguments I've ever witnessed with smf. He posts blogs and locks out comments. I think that's enough said.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: lharms]
#316280 - 10/23/13 02:19 AM
|
|
|
> However, here is your problem in a nutshell.
>
> I write this
> int x = 1;
> int y = 2;
> if (x = y) printf("%d", x);
>
> woops assignment inside of an if, you come along and change it to this
> if (x == y) printf("%d", x);
>
> Who 'owns' it? The answer is we both do under the eyes of the law.
Well, it's actually not so simple.
In cases where there is a clear, obvious way of doing something (like your example), or in cases where there really is only one way to write the code, the answers come down to the fine details of copyright law. See http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/30/64 for some interesting analysis, specifically the "Software Code Not Subject To Copyright" section.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: lharms]
#316282 - 10/23/13 03:09 AM
|
|
|
> Who 'owns' it? The answer is we both do under the eyes of the law. No matter how
> 'trivial' it is (you own an equals sign). A judge would not see it as 'trivial'. In
> fact you could argue that it radically changed the way the code works. Copyright does
> not work that way. At the company you work for now I am sure they have NDA's in place
> for many things. Those are there to say if this situation happens your company owns
> it. The companies I have worked for do similar things.
What do NDAs have to do with works for hire and copyright assignment?
|
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6118
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#316284 - 10/23/13 05:48 AM
|
|
|
> As it has been said solitude is the playground for resentment and Haze seems to have
> on top of that some psychological need to be treated as an outcast and martyr. I'm
> not making fun of him, just saying. He likes to get kicked off message boards and
> email lists and then turns down offers to come back. Before he was banned here he was
> sending me messages saying "just go ahead and ban me". I would reply "if you don't
> want to post here, just leave". Eventually twisty or someone else banned him after he
> tried his ass off to get banned. Later I offered to unban him and he turned down the
> offer. He's turned down the offer to return to the mamedev list. He asked me to
> remove him from the DU list after he got into one of the smallest arguments I've ever
> witnessed with smf. He posts blogs and locks out comments. I think that's enough
> said.
Sound like Haze been drinking or something then go off. Pretty bad. I probably let him go and not letting him back on the team. The way I see this. He off the team. Get someone else on the team.
|
W11 Home 64-bit + Nobara OS / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.59 GHz / RAM 64 GB
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Dullaron]
#316285 - 10/23/13 05:52 AM
|
|
|
No he just goes off, doesn't need alcohol. That would be a lot to type while drunk. He doesn't want back on the mamedev list or any other one. He likes being banned like I just said.
|
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6118
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#316286 - 10/23/13 05:54 AM
|
|
|
> No he just goes off, doesn't need alcohol. That would be a lot to type while drunk.
> He doesn't want back on the mamedev list or any other one. He likes being banned like
> I just said.
Oh ok.
|
W11 Home 64-bit + Nobara OS / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.59 GHz / RAM 64 GB
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316289 - 10/23/13 11:57 AM
|
|
|
Shame on you for selling MAME (if BSD). How much did they pay you?
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: kodl]
#316290 - 10/23/13 12:00 PM
|
|
|
> Shame on you for selling MAME (if BSD). How much did they pay you?
Wait... what?
LN
|
"When life gives you zombies... *CHA-CHIK!* ...you make zombie-ade!"
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316291 - 10/23/13 12:06 PM
|
|
|
He knows, to those who want use MAME code and make profit and don't even admit that they use MAME code. (if BSD)
sorry for bad english
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: kodl]
#316292 - 10/23/13 12:17 PM
|
|
|
> He knows, to those who want use MAME code and make profit and don't even admit that
> they use MAME code. (if BSD)
>
> sorry for bad english
huh? Try explaining in your native language maybe. I'm not understanding.
LN
|
"When life gives you zombies... *CHA-CHIK!* ...you make zombie-ade!"
|
|
| RATMNL |
|
Patron Saint of the Totally F*cked
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/02/13
|
|
Posts: 425
|
|
Loc: 026, NL
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Man... And I thought there was Actual news (NT)
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316293 - 10/23/13 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
"Those voices in his head might not be real, but they have really good ideas!"
|
|
|
Re: Man... And I thought there was Actual news (NT)
[Re: RATMNL]
#316294 - 10/23/13 01:29 PM
|
|
|
After reading the last few posts, **I** need a drink.
Hell with it, I am going to go play Frenzy. 
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316295 - 10/23/13 01:29 PM
|
|
|
Will this affect us from ever seeing a fix for Hogan's Alley light gun color palette problem? 
|
|
|
| Chism |
|
MAME Fan
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/07
|
|
Posts: 68
|
|
Loc: Germany
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316297 - 10/23/13 02:25 PM
|
|
|
6. It is a common misconception that we can copyright our code to "The MAME Team." But the MAME Team is an amorphous, ever-changing, and non-legal entity. Thus, copyrights on the code in MAME can only be held by individuals. Because of this fact, and because there is disagreement on how the code should be licensed, there is never any hope of ever untangling the licensing mess until the files that make up MAME are attributed. Attribution is an annoying and messy business which I hope can eventually be automated.
You can, if you define The MAME Team as an organisation with registered members.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Dullaron]
#316298 - 10/23/13 04:50 PM
|
|
|
> > No he just goes off, doesn't need alcohol. That would be a lot to type while drunk.
> > He doesn't want back on the mamedev list or any other one. He likes being banned
> like
> > I just said.
>
> Oh ok.
But i agreed with Dullaron.
Let's forget the past and move on. 
Hope we can get someone else better and 100% fresh in their mind.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Matty_]
#316299 - 10/23/13 04:52 PM
|
|
|
> What do NDAs have to do with works for hire and copyright assignment?
These are the legal assignments you sign to transfer your rights to the other party. Basically they are usually the contract saying you are doing a work for hire. They are usually 1-2 pages long. They usually say something like 'anything you write while under the employment of company xyz belongs to company xyz'. Sometimes they are that bad and you have to read them all.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316300 - 10/23/13 05:10 PM
|
|
|
> Well, it's actually not so simple.
>
> In cases where there is a clear, obvious way of doing something (like your example),
> or in cases where there really is only one way to write the code, the answers come
> down to the fine details of copyright law. See
> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/30/64 for some interesting analysis,
> specifically the "Software Code Not Subject To Copyright" section.
Treat it as that simple. The courts would complicate it enough for you. However from many court rulings it is more complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test Basically with code as we know you can transform it a bit and get the same result yet it looks radically different. Also in the simple case I have we both have claims to part of the code. Now I may be the 'owner'. However you also own a bit but a chunk copied from me. Its a subtle difference and easy to confuse who 'owns' it. Now as the owner however it does not mean I can take your code and use it either. We would have to come to an understanding. Usually in open source projects that understanding is the license.
In this case it would only be fair if you made a good faith attempt to get everyone to say what they want (which it looks like you are doing). As you said your existing license is probably not that great and assigning ownership to a non entity. In the case of mame/mess it is a huge mess (heh heh) as it is not entirely clear who owns what bits. I know some have suggested putting it to a vote. But even that may not be enough. I would also suggest 1 license (whichever one you pick) and not dual. If you do dual you may end up with this same argument down the road again or with parts of your own code you can not mix together.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: lharms]
#316301 - 10/23/13 06:09 PM
|
|
|
Nnnoooooooo. NDA means "Non-Disclosure Agreement", and that has NOTHING to do with copyright assignment itself.
|
---
Try checking the MAME manual at http://docs.mamedev.org
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Firehawke]
#316302 - 10/23/13 06:21 PM
|
|
|
> Nnnoooooooo. NDA means "Non-Disclosure Agreement", and that has NOTHING to do with
> copyright assignment itself.
Having had a few of these things thrown in front of me at one point or another. Many do exactly just that. However, if you read them you will also see sometimes they are a transfers of ownership too.
So yes I may have over spoke on that. But many employer to employee ones are very over-broad in their scope and are sneaky... Some companies separate it into 2 separate documents. However, not all do.
Moral of the story read your docs
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: lharms]
#316303 - 10/23/13 06:49 PM
|
|
|
At that point it's no longer an NDA and more of a full-on contract.
|
---
Try checking the MAME manual at http://docs.mamedev.org
|
|
|
Dude, this IS news.....
[Re: RATMNL]
#316308 - 10/23/13 11:59 PM
|
|
|
I like Haze, he's funny and smart and does a lot of cool stuff - but he's gotta go get laid or play with his pussy more or something, cos he's got too much steam built up.
Aaron nearly always has cool shit to say.
Anyways, people should just code whatever [for MAME] and not own any of it. Give it away, give it away, give away now......
|
Scifi frauds. SF illuminates.
_________________
Culture General Contact Unit (Eccentric)
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6118
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Off Topic. Likes their musics. Daft Punk :)
[Re: Lewis King]
#316309 - 10/24/13 12:00 AM
|
|
|
My friend likes their musics too.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316331 - 10/24/13 03:25 PM
|
|
|
why Haze doesn't create his own Mame version?competition is always good for business
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316339 - 10/24/13 07:08 PM
|
|
|
*yaaaaaaaaawn* wake up good people, this is the web where nobody owns anything and where all possible legal infringements are committed by everybody and everyday, others have tried to stop that before, nobody succeeded
don't get why you're all being so worked up, it was entertaining at first, but when it comes to jokes, keep it short and sweet...
|
|
|
| Cable |
|
retro gamer
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/30/08
|
|
Posts: 131
|
|
Loc: UK
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316341 - 10/24/13 08:41 PM
|
|
|
One the most annoying things for those of us on the outside, is that Haze is very talented like all the mame devs. He has helped to progress mame in so many ways over the years. With the limited amount of active mame devs i for one would not wish to see him go. I just wish he could learn how to play nicely with the other boys and girls.
|
|
|
Mr. Do |
|
MAME Art Editor
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 4860
|
|
Loc: California
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
and what's really sad
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316349 - 10/25/13 01:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: Mr. Do]
#316368 - 10/25/13 04:00 PM
|
|
|
what's really sad is the idea Haze has of discussions, as it emerges clearly from his blog (but it was the same 2 years ago when he tried to force the merging of MESS with MAME, and other times too): 9 posts over his blog in a week, iterating over and over his point of view, refusing to acknowledge others' arguments, not allowing replies from the people he attacks, closing comments when counterarguments are shown.
basically either you worship him, or you have no right to highlight any weak point in his arguments. Haze-land sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me...
|
|
|
| CptGuapo |
|
Beat'em-ups Lover
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/18/08
|
|
Posts: 342
|
|
Loc: Off to Never Never Land
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Cable]
#316369 - 10/25/13 04:25 PM
|
|
|
I second that. You read my thoughts.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: Mr. Do]
#316374 - 10/25/13 05:21 PM
|
|
|
Haze continues to make the same fundamental mistake: he doesn't understand multiple licensing. When Aaron made the core stuff BSD (which allowed CD-i Emulator, DEMUL, and WinUAE to use his code to load CHDs, by the way) it was still also shipped in MAME under the MAME license. BSD only applies once you remove it from MAME; within MAME the license of MAME always applies and there is no issue combining it with other MAME code.
The same thing happened when Olivier and I relicensed our YMF278B sound core as MAME and LGPL v2.1: in MAME it's under the MAME license and can be combined with any other MAME file no problem. OpenMSX was then able to use the code for MoonSound emulation, subject it to a lot more test cases than we had available in MAME, and send us back a stack of bugfixes which made MAME sound better. That's a true win-win.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316379 - 10/25/13 07:18 PM
|
|
|
> BSD only applies once you remove it from MAME; within MAME the license of MAME always applies
I'm a little confused on that distinction. Does the license apply to the file in its entirety or are you going to try attributing individual lines? If you do it on a whole file and someone submits something non-OSI to it then the entire file becomes MAME-only and so in or out of MAME that file isn't OSI. At least, that's how I understood an earlier post of yours. If you do it on individual lines you have ... a real mess if anyone tries to take the OSI pieces out.
Edited by bdam (10/25/13 07:19 PM)
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: etabeta]
#316380 - 10/25/13 07:19 PM
|
|
|
> what's really sad is the idea Haze has of discussions, as it emerges clearly from his
> blog (but it was the same 2 years ago when he tried to force the merging of MESS with
> MAME, and other times too): 9 posts over its blog in a week, iterating over and over
> its point of view, refusing to acknowledge other's arguments, not allowing replies
> from the people he attacks, closing comments when counterarguments are shown.
> basically either you worship him, or you have no right to highlight any weak point in
> his arguments. Haze-land sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me...
I was thinking it's a rather strange way to communicate. He posts to his blog, everyone comes here to discuss what he said, then he makes another post which clearly shows he's reading what goes on here. It would seem to make sense just to come here and have the discussion directly. I know he was banned at one point, but I'm pretty sure he's since been invited back.
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316384 - 10/25/13 07:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Master O]
#316385 - 10/25/13 08:01 PM
|
|
|
> So, has work on MAME stopped while this licensing issue is going on?
Most definitely not.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: bdam]
#316386 - 10/25/13 08:34 PM
|
|
|
> > BSD only applies once you remove it from MAME; within MAME the license of MAME
> always applies
>
> I'm a little confused on that distinction. Does the license apply to the file in its
> entirety or are you going to try attributing individual lines? If you do it on a
> whole file and someone submits something non-OSI to it then the entire file becomes
> MAME-only and so in or out of MAME that file isn't OSI. At least, that's how I
> understood an earlier post of yours. If you do it on individual lines you have ... a
> real mess if anyone tries to take the OSI pieces out.
When Arbee said "send us back a stack of bugfixes", I assume he meant that the OpenMSX guys specifically gave permission that their fixes be licensed both under their own license and any licenses it had when in MAME as well. In that case its a legal non-issue.
LN
|
|
|
| Sune |
|
Connected
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5648
|
|
Loc: Lagoa Santa, Brasil
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So why did this annoy me so much?
[Re: Master O]
#316389 - 10/25/13 08:46 PM
|
|
|
> So, has work on MAME stopped while this licensing issue is going on?
You can follow what's being worked on here: http://git.redump.net/mame/
S
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: Lord Nightmare]
#316390 - 10/25/13 08:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: Lord Nightmare]
#316391 - 10/25/13 08:51 PM
|
|
|
> When Arbee said "send us back a stack of bugfixes", I assume he meant that the
> OpenMSX guys specifically gave permission that their fixes be licensed both under
> their own license and any licenses it had when in MAME as well. In that case its a
> legal non-issue.
Correct. If you submit patches to a file, you obviously must agree to all of the license(s) the files were under.
In this specific case they were using it strictly under the terms of the LGPL v2.1, which meant they were obligated to send changes back to Olivier and myself. But in practice the license was a background formality like you'd hope.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: bdam]
#316392 - 10/25/13 08:58 PM
|
|
|
> File X is originally BSD+MAME but someone makes a contribution agreeing only to the
> MAME license. In or out of MAME I don't see how that file can be licensed BSD with
> those changes.
In that case the patched file would only bear the MAME license. Legally that's fine; in reality my previous mention of not being a dick would (hopefully) come into play since you are restricting the code beyond the intent of the original author(s).
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316393 - 10/25/13 09:06 PM
|
|
|
Ok, then I guess your distinction between in or out of MAME is just lost on me. Not that that matters, I have no real stake in this and generally agree with what you're trying to do, but you made a point of it so I thought I'd try and understand it. To me, in or out of MAME the file has a license and you can choose which you want to follow.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: bdam]
#316394 - 10/25/13 09:15 PM
|
|
|
> Ok, then I guess your distinction between in or out of MAME is just lost on me. Not
> that that matters, I have no real stake in this and generally agree with what you're
> trying to do, but you made a point of it so I thought I'd try and understand it. To
> me, in or out of MAME the file has a license and you can choose which you want to
> follow.
It's really easy: if you use a multiply-licensed file in a project, you must choose an available license which is compatible with the project's license. In current MAME, that choice is always the MAME license.
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: DMala]
#316395 - 10/25/13 09:49 PM
|
|
|
> I was thinking it's a rather strange way to communicate. He posts to his blog,
> everyone comes here to discuss what he said, then he makes another post which clearly
> shows he's reading what goes on here. It would seem to make sense just to come here
> and have the discussion directly. I know he was banned at one point, but I'm pretty
> sure he's since been invited back.
The obvious difference seems too be that he has 100% control and power in his blog world which does not apply here.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316439 - 10/27/13 10:21 AM
|
|
|
At least some of Haze's more recent posts (like "_and it's all pointless anyway?") have more accurately represented the proposed changes, which he clearly didn't have complete information on when he started blogging about them. Personally, I think a MAME with core files BSD and driver files LGPL would be a good thing, and mutually beneficial for the emulators incorporating each other's code. However, it sounds like MAMEdev is unable or at least unwilling to relicense code without the unanimous consent of the primary contributors.
So I guess the short-term goal is just to tag various files with more permissive licenses if they're able to do so. I don't see a legal problem here as long as they're making a good-faith effort to attribute copyright to the legal holders, and correct mistakes as they're brought to their attention. Simply contributing technical information, as useful as that is, does not grant copyright to the resulting code others write. And while there will no doubt be gray areas, there are legal guidelines as to what sort of code changes are copyrightable.
But I am curious about the long-term goal. Are you trying to eventually get to an OSI-licensed MAME? Perhaps this is possible long-term if you get agreement from a large number of contributors, re-write a bunch of code where a copyright holder doesn't agree to the change or can't be located, and don't accept submissions that would change a dual-licensed file back to a MAME license only. That would of course be a lot of work that didn't immediately improve emulation, but maybe it would be worth it in the long term. If you're not trying to do that, then I guess you just continue to have MAME with scattered files tagged with secondary licenses. That might be enough to benefit some particular drivers and projects, but I don't see it helping with some of the other uses discussed like museums or academia.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: ranger_lennier]
#316443 - 10/27/13 01:20 PM
|
|
|
> Are you trying to eventually get to an OSI-licensed MAME?
It depends on who you ask, you're making the assumption that we all share the same view.
I think GPL is inevitable at some future point in time. I personally wouldn't go for anything more permissive.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: ]
#316463 - 10/27/13 10:30 PM
|
|
|
> > Are you trying to eventually get to an OSI-licensed MAME?
>
> It depends on who you ask, you're making the assumption that we all share the same
> view.
>
No, I definitely don't assume that. But presumably at some point MAMEdev as an organization will reach a decision. I hope they don't lose too many developers in the process. But I know that you can't please everyone all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand a disagreement among developers on how MAME should be licensed. The part the bugged me was the thought that there is any bad INTENT by anyone. I think everyone that has worked on MAME from day one, has done it for the greater good. My hat goes off to each and everyone that has touched the code. I don't know how many time I've seen a newly supported game and thought "Shit, I remember that one". MAME has preserved a piece of my life, jarred memories loose and has made me smile a million times.
fuck it, I'm stealing Mr Do's avatar (or whatever the hell you call it)
RELAX and just have fun. Remember, it's all about the games.
[ATTACHED IMAGE]
|
|
|
|
David Haywood's Homepage Downloads disabled..
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316485 - 10/28/13 03:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: ]
#316487 - 10/28/13 04:31 PM
|
|
|
> I think GPL is inevitable at some future point in time. I personally wouldn't go for
> anything more permissive.
Personally I'm fine with something more permissive, but GPL would make me very, very happy.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316500 - 10/28/13 08:32 PM
|
|
|
To heck with it, with all these dang license threads I think this is a great time to ask a no, no question.
Aaron, an ETA on getting Space Lords fully working? You were so close a few years ago!!!!!
Yes, I know you're not suppose to bug devs about certain games, but man, I really want to play it again!
I have a fully working board I can send your way if it will help!
|
|
|
| gregf |
|
Ramtek's Trivia promoter
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 8588
|
|
Loc: southern CA, US
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: Antny]
#316501 - 10/28/13 08:59 PM
|
|
|
>I don't know how many time I've seen a newly supported game and thought "Shit, I
>remember that one". MAME has preserved a piece of my life, jarred memories loose and
>has made me smile a million times.
DICE to the rescue with a new release maybe weeks away.
Meanwhile, copies of various Ramtek paperwork, Allied Leisure Street Burners, Atari/Kee Games' Crossfire have arrived or will soon arrive at a couple folk's places. Rich got an envelope of the paperwork while Adam's envelope will arrive later.
--
Clean Sweep Schematics
10/05/13 02:40 AM
http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/sho...part=1&vc=1
--
I would still like to get a Ramtek Clean Sweep bezel for scanning purposes because game incorporates backlit lamps during gameplay.
For those not familiar with Crossfire, read Keith's post in which former Atari employee Lyle R. describes gameplay of Crossfire.
--
Keith Smith's post
http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/sho...part=1&vc=1
--
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: gregf]
#316506 - 10/29/13 01:00 AM
|
|
|
Sweet Greg. Great job with the paperwork. I'm hoping we will see a new DICE released before the end of the year. Thanks for your contribution. Crossfire would be neat to see....considering how rare it is.
(I meant to put an 's' at the end of 'time' in my previous post. I was tired)
|
|
|
|
Re: David Haywood's Homepage Downloads disabled..
[Re: DaffyDuck]
#316508 - 10/29/13 01:36 AM
|
|
|
> http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/2013/10/27/downloads-disabled/
I'm not sure what at this point is considered stirring things up, kicking a dead horse, or what, but what exactly is Haze going on about here? Has he opened some sort of can of worms over his opposing views, is he just being dramatic for effect, or what...? He makes a vague statement about "seeking legal counsel" and the (il)legality of mame without any further explanation, and of course, comments disallowed. I waited a little bit to see if the topic would come up on its own without having to ask, but...it has not.
|
|
|
|
Re: David Haywood's Homepage Downloads disabled..
[Re: Sharkpuncher]
#316510 - 10/29/13 02:13 AM
|
|
|
>
> I'm not sure what at this point is considered stirring things up, kicking a dead
> horse, or what, but what exactly is Haze going on about here? Has he opened some sort
> of can of worms over his opposing views, is he just being dramatic for effect, or
> what...? He makes a vague statement about "seeking legal counsel" and the
> (il)legality of mame without any further explanation, and of course, comments
> disallowed. I waited a little bit to see if the topic would come up on its own
> without having to ask, but...it has not.
Well, the only specific problem he went into with that post is the presence of a ROM directly in the MAME source code. While that probably is a copyright violation, it's an isolated one and apparently not one the rights holder has been too concerned with since it's been there 11 years.
But in general, he talked more about this here:
http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/2013/10/25/the-already-dead-theory/
Basically, he's afraid that in the past, MAME has changed its license when it was not legally able to do so because it didn't have the consent of all contributors. I definitely don't know enough about the history of MAME and about copyright law to say whether this is correct. I will say that, when the whole licensing dust-up started, one of the first things I asked myself was why MAMEdev would need to seek the permission of every contributor to change the license of their code, when in the past, the entire MAME license was changed without unanimous consent. But a lot of those changes were smaller than moving to GPL or BSD, so it may not be a perfect comparison.
|
|
|
|
Re: David Haywood's Homepage Downloads disabled..
[Re: Sharkpuncher]
#316511 - 10/29/13 03:00 AM
|
|
|
So is this of many things that are going to be removed YM2608 sample table in fm.c from MAME with all these legal licenses and stuff?
|
|
|
|
Re: David Haywood's Homepage Downloads disabled..
[Re: ranger_lennier]
#316512 - 10/29/13 03:01 AM
|
|
|
> >
> > I'm not sure what at this point is considered stirring things up, kicking a dead
> > horse, or what, but what exactly is Haze going on about here? Has he opened some
> sort
> > of can of worms over his opposing views, is he just being dramatic for effect, or
> > what...? He makes a vague statement about "seeking legal counsel" and the
> > (il)legality of mame without any further explanation, and of course, comments
> > disallowed. I waited a little bit to see if the topic would come up on its own
> > without having to ask, but...it has not.
>
> Well, the only specific problem he went into with that post is the presence of a ROM
> directly in the MAME source code. While that probably is a copyright violation, it's
> an isolated one and apparently not one the rights holder has been too concerned with
> since it's been there 11 years.
>
> But in general, he talked more about this here:
>
> http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/2013/10/25/the-already-dead-theory/
>
> Basically, he's afraid that in the past, MAME has changed its license when it was not
> legally able to do so because it didn't have the consent of all contributors. I
> definitely don't know enough about the history of MAME and about copyright law to say
> whether this is correct. I will say that, when the whole licensing dust-up started,
> one of the first things I asked myself was why MAMEdev would need to seek the
> permission of every contributor to change the license of their code, when in the
> past, the entire MAME license was changed without unanimous consent. But a lot of
> those changes were smaller than moving to GPL or BSD, so it may not be a perfect
Ah. The one thing that stands out to me about the whole thing is that, yes, I understand the stance of "I don't want to do it this way, and since I have a share in this, I object" except that it seems like people keep bringing up things as stand-ins, like the various past contributors of MAME who may have vanished into obscurity that might conceivably object to this. It's propping up your argument with something that can't be proven true or false, one would think that people who contributed to a project such as this would stand for whatever promoted the overall health of the project.*
certainly, splitting hairs over who owns the copyright over what and therefore has the power to stand in the way of their code being used and the intricacies of intellectual property seems a bit odd when it's for a project whose goal has been creating a monumental beast of emulating previously invented hardware, and from the early days, a group collaboration with dozens of hands conceivably assisting along the lifespan of the driver, especially when you start introducing the concept that everyone who has touched the code, ever, needs to have a say in the matter. I mean, I understand that on one hand, yes, after various mamedevs have had to reinvent the wheel with expense and incredible personal effort, such as with decryption or many of the various deductions and innovations, that they wouldn't want some other random individual to steal their code and use it for commercial reasons without them getting any profit/credit for it, but it seems like that is a boogeyman that is being dragged out for this argument as it has already happened (presumably, with some supporting evidence) under the existing license with no recourse or actions other than some swearing and shaking of fists, and that none of these license changes are ensuring commercialization, much less suggesting it. I'm sure that their intention upon writing their code was simply in the spirit of "I want to emulate and document this system or hardware in this project" not "...but if and only if I agree with the licensing structure of this forever and ever. Otherwise, I want my code back, suckers."...and the "spirit" is the relevant part in these manufactured dilemmas.
OTOH, I understand the idea of not including ROM data hard coded into the code for liability reasons, but the timing suggests that this somehow contributes meaningfully to the issue at hand, rather than being an unrelated issue brought to light randomly during the discussion and just thrown out there.
(* even though this began as something that did not directly affect the health of MAME as a whole, it is now something like a room full of people with buckets fighting over which bucket to put handfuls of sand into out of one communal sandbox, and creating a schism that it would seem doesn't need to exist)
|
|
|
|
Has anyone talked to a lawyer about the proposed licensing change?
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316513 - 10/29/13 03:09 AM
|
|
|
Surely this problem has been seen and handled before?
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: XtraSmiley]
#316517 - 10/29/13 04:01 AM
|
|
|
Smart...
Now you can probably start marking years off your Space Lords countdown calendar like the days of the week.
|
|
|
|
Re: David Haywood's Homepage Downloads disabled..
[Re: Sharkpuncher]
#316523 - 10/29/13 08:26 AM
|
|
|
FWIW, we had other roms included in the source as tables in the past, and all have been silently removed and became an external zip set when noticed (mostly, they were included as tables at the origin when the legality matters for small tables often related to math operations was not much of a concern)
the reason why this time the removal needed to be greatly advertised is quite unclear and seems to boil down to "someone" attempting to influence the discussion about licenses without stepping in a civil way into the discussion, from a place where no objections can be raised.
I think anyone can see who is trying to harm the project and who is trying to help it...
|
|
|
|
A rational solution? But then there would be no emu drama! [nt]
[Re: DiodeDude]
#316526 - 10/29/13 01:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update
[Re: DaffyDuck]
#316581 - 10/31/13 02:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316584 - 10/31/13 03:13 AM
|
|
|
> Personally I'm fine with something more permissive, but GPL would make me very, very
> happy.
This surprises me as we were on course for getting majority support for mainly GPL with partly BSD for the few files that make sense (chd etc) when you dropped the make everything BSD bomb.
Edited by smf (10/31/13 03:14 AM)
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: joey35car]
#316610 - 10/31/13 03:58 PM
|
|
|
> http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/
Good grief, I think we've passed the point of any kind of sanity. If anything, it makes a great case study in why a project like MAME should just select the most appropriate of the standard licenses and not mess with it.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: DMala]
#316611 - 10/31/13 04:39 PM
|
|
|
> > http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/
>
> Good grief, I think we've passed the point of any kind of sanity. If anything, it
> makes a great case study in why a project like MAME should just select the most
> appropriate of the standard licenses and not mess with it.
what Haze of course forgot to mention is that he's been asked several times to rectify any incorrect license attributed to his code (instead of threatening that he could ask MAMEUI builds to be removed because of code he owns) and he still refuses to do so, and the fact that many old contributors have been contacted and in most cases they just replied "relicense my code to whatever license the majority of devs agree with, if there is still any such code in MAME" and not along the lines of "how did you dare to change the license without asking my permission"
in due time, I think most code in MAME will be properly attributed and we could see whether to stick with MAME license or to change a larger part of the source to a different license.
in conclusion, I'm not sure what Haze's goal is, at this stage, but surely it does not seem the best for the project
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: ]
#316612 - 10/31/13 04:54 PM
|
|
|
> This surprises me as we were on course for getting majority support for mainly GPL
> with partly BSD for the few files that make sense (chd etc) when you dropped the make
> everything BSD bomb.
At that time you were firmly aligned with Haze's position and GPL was not possible in any way, so I agreed with the least-change-from-current path. You've since come around to a saner position, and if you can get everyone to agree to a BSD/GPL split I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: etabeta]
#316617 - 10/31/13 05:34 PM
|
|
|
> in conclusion, I'm not sure what Haze's goal is, at this stage, but surely it does
> not seem the best for the project
My interpretation of Haze's actions is that he is just lashing out & he has no goal.
I thought he was hoping that we'd surrender at which point he'll sweep all his concerns under the carpet, but I'm not sure of that now.
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316618 - 10/31/13 05:40 PM
|
|
|
> At that time you were firmly aligned with Haze's position and GPL was not possible in
> any way, so I agreed with the least-change-from-current path.
a. My stance was always that out of BSD/LGPL/GPL it was only GPL that I would consider, I haven't decided which version of GPL. While v3 has some things I like, it also has some things I'm not sure I like. I haven't been convinced that an immediate change is actually necessary.
b. The least change from current is GPL. While Aaron talks about the MAME license being like BSD, it's as far as possible from BSD as you can get.
You may have got confused because I wasn't prepared to lie or let others lie about what switching license would/wouldn't allow and the pros/cons, just to get people to agree.
Edited by smf (10/31/13 05:48 PM)
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: ]
#316625 - 10/31/13 07:24 PM
|
|
|
> a. My stance was always that out of BSD/LGPL/GPL it was only GPL that I would
> consider, I haven't decided which version of GPL. While v3 has some things I like, it
> also has some things I'm not sure I like. I haven't been convinced that an immediate
> change is actually necessary.
In other words, you actually do still agree with Haze that we shouldn't change the license.
|
|
|
| Stiletto |
|
They're always after me Lucky ROMS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/07/04
|
|
Posts: 6472
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316626 - 10/31/13 07:36 PM
|
|
|
> > I haven't been convinced that an immediate change is actually necessary.
>
> In other words, you actually do still agree with Haze that we shouldn't change the
> license.
Look, there's enough forward motion now that it's unlikely to stop. Although past experience would certainly give you reason to fear, I don't think this time you need to fear that "not desiring immediate change" means "doesn't want to change".
- Stiletto
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: etabeta]
#316627 - 10/31/13 07:40 PM
|
|
|
> in conclusion, I'm not sure what Haze's goal is, at this stage, but surely it does
> not seem the best for the project
The only sensible thing to do in a legal dispute is to get legal advise. Haze went and got legal advice. How is that not the best for the project?
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316628 - 10/31/13 07:52 PM
|
|
|
> My interpretation of Haze's actions is that he is just lashing out & he has no goal.
He wants control of the project back, same as he's always wanted.
> I thought he was hoping that we'd surrender at which point he'll sweep all his
> concerns under the carpet, but I'm not sure of that now.
That would have to be one hell of a carpet.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316630 - 10/31/13 08:49 PM
|
|
|
> He wants control of the project back, same as he's always wanted.
I think we've gone past that, it's like if he can't have it then he'll make sure it burns.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316645 - 11/01/13 12:04 AM
|
|
|
> > He wants control of the project back, same as he's always wanted.
>
> I think we've gone past that, it's like if he can't have it then he'll make sure it
> burns.
You may know, and perhaps have been more intimate, with Haze than I....but I think he has no mad scientist or what-have-you agenda. He just has a certain sense of order, and is possibly more inclined to 'the letter of the law', rather than the spirit.
Doesn't mean I'd take different action, whatever that might be, though with a neutral prejudice.....
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: Traso]
#316666 - 11/01/13 01:59 PM
|
|
|
Yeah, I can't read anyone's mind here, but I really don't see any destructive motives from Haze (or anyone else, for that matter). If you look past some of the earlier posts, which tended to be less accurate and more angry, I think he at least makes a plausible argument. Basically, it seems that the original sin of MAME licensing was switching to a non-standard license, rather than a standard OSI license that was written up by IP experts. Then, as various people found loopholes in the license, it kept being updated. But, with too many contributors to actually get the permission of every one, it's not clear that MAMEdev had the ability to take code published under the old license and republish it under the new license without violating the old license. Now, as I've said, I don't know if this is true. But Haze says he's gotten legal advise on the matter, and I haven't heard anyone else say they've done this.
If, for the sake of argument, I accept that conclusion, then some of Haze's suggestions make a lot of sense. He's perfectly correct to not attribute partial copyright to himself in cases where he's made major modifications to code already in MAME. If the code wasn't properly licensed to begin with, then he has no legal rights to it. Perhaps, with a lot of work, they could get a completely clean version, but with such a long and complicated history of the code, it would be difficult to say this with a lot of confidence. And if they end up publishing code under GPL or BSD when they don't have the legal right to do so, then they're giving museums and academics a false assurance that they can use MAME code legally. Sanctioned commercial use of the program could perhaps bring unwanted attention to the project.
|
|
|
|
|
> in cases where he's made major modifications to code already in
> MAME. If the code wasn't properly licensed to begin with, then he has no legal rights
> to it.
I might be wrong, but from balrog's explanations of the legal aspects of the problem, if Haze has rewritten the code using the former version just for reference, then he has full right on the new code (even if it is nice to still give credit to the persons who did previous work)
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9711
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
What does it say to you that he wouldn't seek legal advice against people selling MAME commercially in violation of the license but he says he has sought it now to use against the rest of the team?
For the record, there was a large-scale effort at the adoption of the current license to contact everyone back to the beginning of time. It may have missed some people, but ultimately we had responses from over 75 contributors and there have been zero requests since then to refuse the new licensing. So while the previous license-by-amendments was handled poorly, there was a real attempt to rectify all issues when the current license was adopted, and that should mean any problems with the amendment licenses no longer apply.
A similar effort is under way now to further clarify ownership and document it in each source file; there will be a formal announcement of this alongside the release of 0.151 as well as other attempts to reach past contributors.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316691 - 11/01/13 08:41 PM
|
|
|
> That would have to be one hell of a carpet.
Yeah, he's hidden the posts where he claimed that all versions of MAME aren't licensed correctly and now only says that future versions of MAME aren't licensed correctly.
He says illegal, but I don't believe licensing issues constitute a crime (that is the kind of stuff that the police turn up for, not the stuff where one party sues another).
Edited by smf (11/01/13 08:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
> If the code wasn't properly licensed to begin with, then he has no legal rights
> to it.
No actually that is incorrect. If I steal some source code from someone and modify it. Then while I don't have any rights to the code I stole, I do have rights over the code that I wrote (as long as that code is copyrightable, not all code is). The original owner can't then take ownership of it, or I could sue them. AFAIK this has been tested in court before.
Edited by smf (11/01/13 08:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316702 - 11/01/13 11:51 PM
|
|
|
> He says illegal, but I don't believe licensing issues constitute a crime (that is the
> kind of stuff that the police turn up for, not the stuff where one party sues
> another).
Yeah, you have to be really careful to use "illegal" and "unlawful" correctly if you don't want to find yourself guilty of defamation/libel. Then there's the difference between a criminal offence and something where you can be found liable for damages in a civil court.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316706 - 11/02/13 12:43 AM
|
|
|
>What does it say to you that he wouldn't seek legal advice against people selling MAME commercially in violation of the license but he says he has sought it now to use against the rest of the team?
Nothing of course; there's no reason to seek advice on something that is as clear as the former and upon which everyone likely agreed. Advise is cheap, if he seeks legal action then you got something.
>there was a large-scale effort .. to contact everyone back to the beginning of time. It may have missed some people.
This is the crux of the issue that he raises and it's a matter of being practical versus being totally in the clear legally. No doubt, you guys acted in good faith in the changes you made but unless you have some meaningful way of knowing every contributor ever with absolute certainty then it's simply never going to be iron-clad. So yes, he's being a dick/diva but there is a kernel of truth there; it would be almost impossible at this point to guarantee that every line in MAME is being offered under a license that the original author agreed to. Tack on the evolutionary nature of the project and it becomes even more difficult. You can either worry about it and re-write MAME from scratch (eye roll) or just be practical, do the best you can, and admit it isn't perfect.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: etabeta]
#316708 - 11/02/13 02:20 AM
|
|
|
> > in cases where he's made major modifications to code already in
> > MAME. If the code wasn't properly licensed to begin with, then he has no legal
> rights
> > to it.
>
> I might be wrong, but from balrog's explanations of the legal aspects of the problem,
> if Haze has rewritten the code using the former version just for reference, then he
> has full right on the new code (even if it is nice to still give credit to the
> persons who did previous work)
This would be correct if he completely rewrote it. But in many cases, he's modified code, but enough of the original remains that he couldn't claim exclusive copyright over it.
Haze did, in some past posts, make some additional arguments about the ethics of rewriting someone's code to get around licensing issues. I didn't find these particularly compelling. If the old code is merely used as reference, giving credit should be sufficient.
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15243
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Might as well sell it for profit now...
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316709 - 11/02/13 02:33 AM
|
|
|
Already being run just like a corporation....
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316710 - 11/02/13 02:34 AM
|
|
|
> What does it say to you that he wouldn't seek legal advice against people selling
> MAME commercially in violation of the license but he says he has sought it now to use
> against the rest of the team?
>
Honestly, I'm not sure that it's a good comparison. Everyone agreed that people selling MAME violated the license. There was no need to seek legal advice about that question. No one deemed it worthwhile to sue violators, and I agree that this probably would have been a waste of time and money.
Haze clearly stated that he had no plans to sue over MAME licensing. The extent of "using it against the rest of the team" was in making arguments on his blog about relicensing.
> For the record, there was a large-scale effort at the adoption of the current license
> to contact everyone back to the beginning of time. It may have missed some people,
> but ultimately we had responses from over 75 contributors and there have been zero
> requests since then to refuse the new licensing. So while the previous
> license-by-amendments was handled poorly, there was a real attempt to rectify all
> issues when the current license was adopted, and that should mean any problems with
> the amendment licenses no longer apply.
>
> A similar effort is under way now to further clarify ownership and document it in
> each source file; there will be a formal announcement of this alongside the release
> of 0.151 as well as other attempts to reach past contributors.
I do think that MAMEdev is making a good attempt to get their license in order, and I'm not as pessimistic as Haze about the possibility of eventually getting a cleanly licensed version of MAME. But I can't really attack Haze simply for pointing out some potential problems with the licensing. (I would criticize some of the more inflammatory statements he's made.) Those arguments were plausible and, as far as I can tell, made in good faith. Indeed, he now seems ready to go along with the current path even if it's not exactly what he may prefer.
http://mamedev.emulab.it/haze/2013/11/01/cleaning-up/
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316711 - 11/02/13 02:39 AM
|
|
|
>
> He says illegal, but I don't believe licensing issues constitute a crime (that is the
> kind of stuff that the police turn up for, not the stuff where one party sues
> another).
You're right that license violations would generally be handled as a civil matter rather than a criminal one. I'd have thought you could still use the word 'illegal' to reference this, but maybe I'm wrong.
At least in the USA, there are criminal penalties for copyright infringement. These are sometimes enforced for piracy. It would be exceedingly unlikely for these to be enforced for distributing code without the proper license, but I imagine it would be technically possible under the letter of the law.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316712 - 11/02/13 02:51 AM
|
|
|
> > If the code wasn't properly licensed to begin with, then he has no legal rights
> > to it.
>
> No actually that is incorrect. If I steal some source code from someone and modify
> it. Then while I don't have any rights to the code I stole, I do have rights over the
> code that I wrote (as long as that code is copyrightable, not all code is). The
> original owner can't then take ownership of it, or I could sue them. AFAIK this has
> been tested in court before.
This is highly dependent on what exactly you do to the code, and what exactly we're asking about it. Sure, if you write some entirely new functions or blocks of code, you could retain copyright over those. But if you're modifying code that was already there, or copying it and then using it elsewhere with modifications, then you wouldn't have copyright over that code. Certainly, you couldn't distribute the entire file, so you wouldn't have rights to a usable program.
To be extremely precise, here is what I'm saying you can't do:
1) Take code that was released under license A.
2) Make substantial modifications to the code, but not to the extent that it has been entirely rewritten.
3) Release the modified code under an incompatible license B, without permission from the original author.
4) Claim shared copyright over the entire code.
If I'm understanding his arguments correctly, this is why Haze didn't want to list his name as a copyright holder at the top of files he worked on.
|
|
|
| Mr. Do |
|
MAME Art Editor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 4860
|
|
Loc: California
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Everything moved to EmuChat
[Re: AaronGiles]
#316722 - 11/02/13 08:16 AM
|
|
|
NONE of this shit is "news;" it's "discussion." You need to scroll 3/4 of the way down to see that DICE 0.7 was released.
When/if the license does actually change, that will be news, and can be posted on the News board accordingly.
Discussing why it does/doesn't suck isn't news.
Some guy posting on a blog about why it does/doesn't suck isn't news either.
Some other guy posting on another blog about why it does/doesn't suck still isn't news.
|
|
|
|
|
> At least in the USA, there are criminal penalties for copyright infringement.
I don't believe this case falls under criminal infringement.
"1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution."
|
|
|
|
|
> This is highly dependent on what exactly you do to the code, and what exactly we're
> asking about it. Sure, if you write some entirely new functions or blocks of code,
> you could retain copyright over those. But if you're modifying code that was already
> there, or copying it and then using it elsewhere with modifications, then you
> wouldn't have copyright over that code.
I covered this exact point with "as long as that code is copyrightable, not all code is". Whether it's in a new function, a new block of code or in an existing loop is irrelevant.
> Certainly, you couldn't distribute the entire
> file, so you wouldn't have rights to a usable program.
I didn't say that you did, I'm just saying that you retain the copyright to any copyrightable code. Unless you come to an agreement then neither party can distribute the code, because you both own copyright to various parts.
> To be extremely precise, here is what I'm saying you can't do:
> 1) Take code that was released under license A.
> 2) Make substantial modifications to the code, but not to the extent that it has been
> entirely rewritten.
> 3) Release the modified code under an incompatible license B, without permission from
> the original author.
> 4) Claim shared copyright over the entire code.
>
> If I'm understanding his arguments correctly, this is why Haze didn't want to list
> his name as a copyright holder at the top of files he worked on.
You don't have a right to do point 3, but if you have made substantial modifications to the code in a way that is copyrightable then you definitely have the right to do point 4. It is quite normal to have multiple copyright assertions on a product when multiple parties have claims, individually they only have the rights to certain parts. This is no different. Violating someone elses copyright doesn't diminish your copyright.
Edited by smf (11/02/13 11:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
Re: Everything moved to EmuChat
[Re: Mr. Do]
#316733 - 11/02/13 12:16 PM
|
|
|
> NONE of this shit is "news;" it's "discussion." You need to scroll 3/4 of the way
> down to see that DICE 0.7 was released.
>
> When/if the license does actually change, that will be news, and can be posted on the
> News board accordingly.
>
> Discussing why it does/doesn't suck isn't news.
>
> Some guy posting on a blog about why it does/doesn't suck isn't news either.
>
> Some other guy posting on another blog about why it does/doesn't suck still isn't
> news.
Is it news that the discusson has been moved from news to emuchat?
|
|
|
|
Re: and what's really sad
[Re: R. Belmont]
#316735 - 11/02/13 12:36 PM
|
|
|
> In other words, you actually do still agree with Haze that we shouldn't change the
> license.
There is middle ground between Haze saying we should never change the license and a knee jerk "let's change the license before anyone has a chance to think about it". The people who are at the extreme ends of the argument are as bad as each other.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: absence]
#316736 - 11/02/13 12:50 PM
|
|
|
> The only sensible thing to do in a legal dispute is to get legal advise. Haze went
> and got legal advice. How is that not the best for the project?
AFAIK there is no legal dispute between us. We've not changed the license recently and AFAICT he personally wasn't upset about the changes that were made before.
He may feel that recent copyright assertions by others made on files that he contributed to should reflect his contribution, but he's acting in bad faith by refusing to tell us what those are. Seeking legal advice over this is poor judgement. We possibly have a defamation case against him.
He was upset so he looked for mud to sling, rather than dealing with what he's upset about.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316743 - 11/02/13 03:00 PM
|
|
|
>AFAIK there is no legal dispute between us
Surely you jest. Haze's argument is that it would be impossible to legally change the license at this point. If there's no dispute on that point then what are we talking about?
>We've not changed the license recently
The MAME license hasn't changed but it's my understanding that this has been a push to attribute files to authors and multi-license them. That is to say, individual files have been re-licensed or had licenses added to them.
>he's acting in bad faith by refusing to tell us what those are
He's being a dick, sure, but anyone putting their name and chosen license on a whole file without doing a full line-by-line code audit to verify ownership is likewise acting in bad faith. At least it would seem so to me ... claiming ownership over another's work isn't exactly an up-and-up thing to do. I understand the goal is to have everything attributed but if you don't feel that's truly possible or there's disagreement on what constitutes ownership/contribution then how can you add your name to something you know is not right and is never going to be?
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: bdam]
#316744 - 11/02/13 03:09 PM
|
|
|
> > he's acting in bad faith by refusing to tell us what those are
> He's being a dick, sure, but anyone putting their name and chosen license on a whole
> file without doing a full line-by-line code audit to verify ownership is likewise
> acting in bad faith.
and why are you assuming that no full line-by-line audit is being done?
|
|
|
| RATMNL |
|
Patron Saint of the Totally F*cked
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/02/13
|
|
Posts: 425
|
|
Loc: 026, NL
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: bdam]
#316745 - 11/02/13 03:12 PM
|
|
|
And that's why everybody is yelling past eachother. One is having a purely legal/can we, can't we discussion, while the other party has always had a emotional/should we, shouldn't we feel to it.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: etabeta]
#316748 - 11/02/13 03:54 PM
|
|
|
So you ignored the legal advice bit. Can we agree then that there is a legit dispute and that if ever there was a time to have a chat with an IP lawer about how to go about re-licensing files in MAME this would be the time to do so?
Why the assumption? Because it'd take an incredible amount of time and persistence to do with absolute certainty and without error. Further, I suspect there's has to be some very close calls in there ... who is going to make those? Once done, there's the task of contacting every contributor and not moving forward until you've received a response or re-written their stuff. That seems almost insurmountable unless there's some really sweet tracking of contributions going way way back.
But hey, if people are putting in those thousands of man hours then kudos to them ... should have said-so right off the bat. However, if a contributor doesn't feel like combing through every file in the project to see where their code has ended up I can hardly fault them.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: bdam]
#316751 - 11/02/13 04:55 PM
|
|
|
> The MAME license hasn't changed but it's my understanding that this has been a push
> to attribute files to authors
We are going through a process of trying to work that out yes.
> and multi-license them. That is to say, individual
> files have been re-licensed or had licenses added to them.
Some people have chosen to allow their code to be used under other licenses, this is not news. The difference is we are being explicit about it.
> He's being a dick, sure, but anyone putting their name and chosen license on a whole
> file without doing a full line-by-line code audit to verify ownership is likewise
> acting in bad faith.
If you write 99% of a source file and someone else contributes a fix to it then the person who provides the fix doesn't automatically gain copyright. In the same way that if you proof read a book and find a spelling mistake, you don't get any copyright for it.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316752 - 11/02/13 05:14 PM
|
|
|
>If you write 99% of a source file and someone else contributes a fix to it then ...
That's a straw-man, no one is saying you can't license a file you wrote entirely from scratch. Even then though, you first have to determine that indeed only this author deserves attribution.
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: bdam]
#316754 - 11/02/13 05:22 PM
|
|
|
> That's a straw-man, no one is saying you can't license a file you wrote entirely from
> scratch.
That is a straw-man, I never said anything about a file you wrote entirely from scratch.
> Even then though, you first have to determine that indeed only this author
> deserves attribution.
This is the process that Haze is refusing to be involved with. You seem to be under the impression that someone incorrectly saying they are the sole copyright holder is illegal. The assertions at the moment are a work in progress.
Edited by smf (11/02/13 05:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: Update
[Re: ]
#316762 - 11/02/13 07:20 PM
|
|
|
My apologies. Please interpret this for me then: "If you write 99% of a source file". There's apparently a deeper meaning I'm not understanding.
>In the same way that if you proof read a book and find a spelling mistake, you don't get any copyright for it.
Ok ... since you're pushing the issue and I work for a book publisher ... I can't resist. On some level they do and proof readers often make larger edits but because they are doing it on a work-for-hire basis the copyright is given up to their employer. The author themselves often loose their copyright ... that's what a publishing deal is all about. Most contracts eventually revert it back to the author under certain conditions. Had MAME started off by requiring contributors to assign their copyrights to someone or some legal entity representing MAME this whole issue would have been moot.
>This is the process that Haze is refusing to be involved with
Indeed, and that's a dickish thing to do, but it doesn't necessarily make him wrong. Ultimately, it's not the contributor's legal responsibility to go through the code and figure that all out for you.
>You seem to be under the impression that someone incorrectly saying they are the sole copyright holder is illegal
'Saying' it isn't illegal (or whatever term you want to hash out) but distributing it as such with an incompatible license certainly is. So if you just want to attribute stuff and track who has ownership of what files then sure ... have at it. If you hope to someday use that as the basis of distributing the code under multiple licenses then you'd better be sure you aren't wrong.
Again, as I said in a response to RB that as a practical matter this isn't a problem. It's unlikely anyone would sue and any offending code is replaceable. As a legal matter, in terms of putting MAME on rock solid copyright grounds, I think it is and only a real code audit and unthinkable amount of detective work could make it so. Not that my opinion merits any weight but at some point it would be wise to do what Haze has supposedly done: scrape together some money/donations and get a legal opinion.
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
So why did this annoy me so much?
Reply
