Thank you very much for your answers - just the info I needed.
> > Does that mean that if the MAME code is built into a shared library (.so or .dll), > > these license requirements for the programs that link against MAME are included? > > Yes. You will bring down the wrath of MAMEdev if you ever link any part of MAME > against closed-source, for instance. This is why we explicitly endorse > ClientServerMAME and explicitly condemn Kaillera (I mean, besides that the latter is > also an exploit-ridden piece of junk).
OK no problem - I intended to release source anyway I just wanted to understand the requirements in more detail.
I do have another more interesting scenario for you to consider though.
What if someone implemented a MAME OSD layer that forwarded textures and audio segments over a network connection to a remote peer that did nothing except display those textures/audio and then supplied input back over the network to be fed back into MAME? Does that violate the MAME license? MAME itself is running in a binary that is not being distributed, but the runtime results of the MAME executable - audio and video, and user input going back the other way - are being distributed over the network. Does that count as a license violation?
Now - what if that same client/server mechanism were used but instead of using a network connection it was using message passing over a shared memory segment on the same box. Now would the client that displayed MAME's output have to have its source released? It's not a part of the MAME binary, remember; it's nothing more than a program that can read and display the output of MAME, kind of like how a movie player application can play the output of AVI files written by MAME ...
|