>We know what we have to do. The only people who would pay for a lawyer would be someone who thinks we've done it wrong. You think you know what you have to do. People who are willing to admit that they themselves are not IP lawyers yet seek solid legal ground would be wise to pay/find one to give an opinion on such a quest.
>As long as there are no damages then if they went straight to court without even asking us to correct the mistake Points taken, but as I understand it, the long term goal here is to be on an OSI license that would not only protect MAME itself but by extension others who desire to use MAME's code. For instance, the museum thing. Wouldn't you think external users of the code would feel more secure to know that legitimate legal advice was sought versus "we're coders, we read things, we know what we're going". As Aaron describes it, isn't that how it got to this point in the first place with a 'dumb' license?