> 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!
Ah, OK. Understood. That clarifies things greatly; thank you. To be honest, I wasn't considering a scenario like the one mentioned above as being something likely to happen - really, just some clarification of intent was needed.
> 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.
Got it - I see the distinction. But if some drivers retain the 'no commercial use' license, then it seems like it's really no different to where things sit today.
I do have a concern that dual-licensing can lead to license conflict - basically, that something in the existing MAME license could be in contention with something in the (L)GPL. What considerations have been made in this regard?
Also, could you give an example of a driver or drivers that would remain under this license? I'm trying to understand scenarios where this would be necessary, and have a couple of ideas but examples would be helpful.
> The objective is to reduce the amount of solely no-commercial-use licensed files in > the mame source code.
Fair enough, and I understand that for institutions like museums this would be beneficial. But in a wider sense, what other practical advantages would this confer?