> 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.
It seems to me that the problematic scenario here is that it opens the door for people to bundle MAME with ROMs to sell on eBay, etc. Currently, MAMEDEV can issue takedowns directly based on the no-commercial-use clause. Without it, I would think the only recourse would be to notify the ROM copyright holders. It doesn't harm MAME directly, but it could reinforce the impression that MAME is aligned with piracy. Plus, I can understand developers being upset that their work is being used so bottom feeders can make money.