> (BTW: the /. article is at > http://slashdot.org/story/15/05/16/133227/mame-changing-license-to-fully-libre-one) > > This comment on Slashdot by a MAMEdev (place your bets on who it is) explains things > pretty well, and it's what Haze was getting at in his most recent post: > > At the same time you’re also seeing a drive to clear up the licensing a little more. > This, like the above, is just a step in the project maturing. As an arcade-only > emulator it was easy to write MAME off as nothing but a toy; while it did have a > number of other uses the majority of what it did (and what people ended up using it > for) was run games. By bringing in the more serious side of the project we end up > with a more professional piece of software with numerous irrefutable uses that extend > well beyond any simple misconception of the project being nothing but a toy. With > that more professional front to the project the need for a standard license also > becomes greater, and I also feel more comfortable in re-licensing my code to be more > permissive knowing that it is part of something that has many more legal uses. > Obviously a number of the issues with older code that were raised before remain, but > we’re in a better place right now than back then. > > IMHO, I'm frankly glad there haven't been DevWars over the licensing; going by Git > commits, the responses have been quite positive. Hell, I've seen a lot of dev names I > haven't seen since the orange-text-in-the-DOS-UI days of MAME give their blessing in > the commits, in one license or another. > > Let's see what the future beholds...
Orange-text-in-the-DOS-UI days?
"Note to Noobs:
We are glad to help you but simply posting that something does not work is not going to lead to you getting help. The more information you can supply defining your problem, the less likely it will be that you will get smart-alec replies.
Index 
Flat 
Re: MAME changing its license?
Reply
This nag screen rules
