> > > 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?
I meant open source there to be 'OSI-approved open source with no non-commercial clause', NOT 'closed source'! Having some closed-source DRM module in the core is NOT on the agenda!
I meant it as to say that the core of MAME would be completely open source (much of it already is 3-clause-BSD licensed by Aaron since a year or three ago), and the drivers may retain the current 'no commercial use, contributions must be made available' MAME license and be dual-licensed with GPL or LGPL. This would make it much easier to use MAME's code in other open source project and in contexts like museums where it would be violating the no-commercial-use clause. Some drivers would certainly retain 'no commercial use', though.
The whole objective of this entire agenda was to reduce the amount of solely no-commercial-use MAME licensed files in the source code, in favor of files being dual-licensed.
There was some talk of completely relicensing the entire project as another license but this was shot down, because that's nearly impossible as it would require EVERY SINGLE MAME CONTRIBUTOR EVER to sign off on it, which is highly unlikely.
Haze is blowing this whole thing completely out of proportion.
"When life gives you zombies... *CHA-CHIK!* ...you make zombie-ade!"