> would not have started in the first place if
> not for one very specific proprietary platform, and b) would not have expanded as it
> has if not for it and its descendants.
Jeez what bullshit, it could have started on an open platform, or even another proprietary platform, open source projects are started everywhere. You are trying to claim that Mame owes something to it being started on a proprietary OS (which was what shipped with and still is shipped with basically every desktop computer sold)? Seriously?
Again I don't care one bit what you use, if anyone is a tool it's you.
> weren't for MS-DOS and the tools on that platform that made creating MAME possible,
Lol, people didn't write code at all before MS-DOS... keep drinking the Kool-aid buddy.
> Either way, you're a hypocrite for railing against
> 'proprietary' platforms when the software that you enjoy on your 'free' and 'open'
> one is directly derived from one that does not fit your preferences in that regard.
Mame is 'directly derived from Windows' ? Seriously? Do you know what 'derived' even means in programming terms?
> After all, it would be a crime if MAME's proprietary
> origins were to taint the racial purity of your 'free' and 'open' platform of choice.
Mame has no 'proprietary origins', as far as I know it was open source from it's first version (0.1) and onwards. Which in turn was key to it's success back when practically all other emulators where proprietary, but this was an open project to which everyone could contribute and port to other systems.
> Of course, doing so would assume that you truly have the courage of your convictions,
> which you obviously don't because you're clearly using a piece of software whose
> origin and licence clashes with those of your platform of choice in a great many
Nonsense, I have no problem with proprietary code (though unlike you I don't have a hard-on for it, try not to stain that Bill Gates shrine photo too much), I certainly prefer open source and see it as a superior development method.
But what I strongly believe in is the authors right to set his or her conditions for using their code (which includes proprietary), here however it looks like Aaron and R.B are railroading Mame developers into a re-licencing of their code, for 'official' reasons which seem very dubious to me to say the least, and even if they are truly legit, hardly warrants such a disruptive course of action.
> Bad news: it's already happened, many times over. People who do not choose to respect
> one licence will just as easily choose to not respect another. In that regard, it's a
> moot point. For proof, see the umpteen x-in-1 MAME-derived ROM sets supported in, uh,
But previously they were doing it illegally, and the Mame devs could not be directly blamed as they weren't allowing this. Now with this proposed change it's actually legal which makes a huge difference, and the game rom copyright owners will hardly look upon this change fondly either.
It's one thing when people are using their IP without consent, it's another thing when people are making money out of other people using their IP without consent.
It's like the fact that we have a ton of laws which are extremely rarely enforced, but it's important to have those as laws because there may come a time when people breaking those laws en masse or in a particular instance will cause havoc, and then you will need them to be enforcable.
As it was now, Mame devs could legally enforce a DMCA takedown of commercial Mame versions, on the WWW that would be hard to enforce certainly, but atleast they could take down stuff from the mobile app stores, which let's face it is where most commercial Mame versions will end up, and likely flooded with if it becomes legal.
> I sincerely hope that you didn't strain yourself coming up with that riposte; it
No more than it took you to come up with such an amazing insult.