> > 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.
(Emphasis on 'most' above mine.)
Could you please elaborate on what would not be considered open-source within the MAME tree? It's not clear to me what 'most' would and would not cover in this context - or, perhaps to ask the question more accurately: what would now not be considered open-source that was previously?