> > > So then there gonna privatise MAME > > > > Nope. You missed the whole point. The idea was proposed to move to an OSI-friendly > > license, which gets rid of the no-commercial use clause, but still requires most of > > the code to be open source. > > > > LN > > http://opensource.org/faq#commercial > > "Can Open Source software (OSI) be used for commercial purposes? > Absolutely. All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open > Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source software. > > However, note that commercial is not the same as proprietary. If you receive software > under an Open Source license, you can always use that software for commercial > purposes, but that doesn't always mean you can place further restrictions on people > who receive the software from you. In particular, so-called copyleft-style Open > Source licenses require that when you distribute the software, you do so under the > same license you received it under."
Remember, if MAME goes under the GPL that means anyone who sells it has to distribute the exact source used to build it, meaning anyone else can compile it and sell it for less than the first person, legally. This is a large disincentive for people to use GPL products in commercial software. Hence while lacking a non-commercial-use clause, it has some similarities.
"When life gives you zombies... *CHA-CHIK!* ...you make zombie-ade!"