> What does it say to you that he wouldn't seek legal advice against people selling > MAME commercially in violation of the license but he says he has sought it now to use > against the rest of the team? >
Honestly, I'm not sure that it's a good comparison. Everyone agreed that people selling MAME violated the license. There was no need to seek legal advice about that question. No one deemed it worthwhile to sue violators, and I agree that this probably would have been a waste of time and money.
Haze clearly stated that he had no plans to sue over MAME licensing. The extent of "using it against the rest of the team" was in making arguments on his blog about relicensing.
> For the record, there was a large-scale effort at the adoption of the current license > to contact everyone back to the beginning of time. It may have missed some people, > but ultimately we had responses from over 75 contributors and there have been zero > requests since then to refuse the new licensing. So while the previous > license-by-amendments was handled poorly, there was a real attempt to rectify all > issues when the current license was adopted, and that should mean any problems with > the amendment licenses no longer apply. > > A similar effort is under way now to further clarify ownership and document it in > each source file; there will be a formal announcement of this alongside the release > of 0.151 as well as other attempts to reach past contributors.
I do think that MAMEdev is making a good attempt to get their license in order, and I'm not as pessimistic as Haze about the possibility of eventually getting a cleanly licensed version of MAME. But I can't really attack Haze simply for pointing out some potential problems with the licensing. (I would criticize some of the more inflammatory statements he's made.) Those arguments were plausible and, as far as I can tell, made in good faith. Indeed, he now seems ready to go along with the current path even if it's not exactly what he may prefer.