> > > > 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. > > LN
Thanks for your info. Is so far enough for my ears.