> 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".
Maybe they would, but they are getting something for free & when you raid free software for commercial gain then you have to accept that it's likely you'll get sued someday.
> As Aaron describes > it, isn't that how it got to this point in the first place with a 'dumb' license?
Aaron doesn't like the current license so will blame all the worlds problems on it. Unless he has a time machine so he can check out his argument then it doesn't hold much weight.
Seeking legal advice is kind of pointless. In any court case both sides have sought legal advice and both sides lawyers think they can win, or at least say they can to get the job. How would we know whether we got legal advice from the winning or losing side?