> > Well, he did have the additional complaint that, in addition to any legal problems > > with relicensing, he considered a thorough audit of the code to be a huge time sink > > without any real benefit to the project, and thought developers should be spending > > that time improving emulation instead. > > Hopefully you understand the problem with that statement: if the team takes his > advice, then the licensing problem never gets resolved and he can use it against the > project any time he likes. >
Yes, I'd say it's good that the team is proactively working to get the license in order. And one reason Haze thinks it will be so difficult is because he's attributing copyright to more changes than, in my understanding, is actually legally required. My main point is that, based on everything I read in Haze's blog posts, I'm not certain that he will, in the end, stand in the way of his code being relicensed. I don't think he actively wishes to harm MAME. But I have much less expectation of him actively participating in the process. So the best compromise I can come up with is that he grants permission to relicense the code over which he owns copyright, but other developers take responsibility for auditing the source code and only changing the license when they've got whatever permissions are required to do so. I'm certainly not sure that this will work, but it seemed worthwhile to throw the idea out there.
Index 
Flat 
Re: Update
Reply
Re: and what's really sad
