MAME To Become GPL?

BigJimSlade writes "The 'What's New' file for the latest release of the Multi Arcade Machine Emulator (or MAME, as it is more affectionately known) states that the developers/maintainers are considering re-licensing the not-so-open source code under the GPL/LGPL. Currently the source is under a slightly restrictive licence that prevents modifications to certain areas of code from being redistributed. (L)GPL source for this project would be quite a boon for devlopers, who could reuse the CPU cores and other key components in other OSS projects."

Comments

OT - How many Roms are legal?

[teamhasnoi]

How many out there actually use Roms they have the licence to? I'm guessing the number of people who own a Tempest cabinet pales in comparison to the number of Rom files out there.

Just a thought.

Re:OT - How many Roms are legal?

[DdJ]

To me, ROMs are they same legal gray area as abandonware.

Abandonware is not in a legal gray area. Pirating abandonware is just as illegal as pirating a $50000 software package. If you must, say it's in a moral grey area (in which case I simply won't agree with you), but don't kid yourself, there's absolutely no legal grey area.

Open source vs Free software

[Anonymous Coward]

MAME was always open source. Saying it was "not-so-open" isn't true. All the source was free to download and look at. That's open source.

MAME was free software, but only free as in beer. It wasn't free as in speech. The change to (L)GPL would make it free software.

Sorry about the anonymous post. When I try to make a subtle point, I always get "-1 overrated" by people who don't read carefully. I don't know why I let the bother me, since I still gain unneeded karma.

Re:Open source vs Free software

[jbn-o]

MAME was always open source. Saying it was "not-so-open" isn't true. All the source was free to download and look at. That's open source.

No, MAME was never Open Source because MAME's license was never approved by OSI, and no, merely seeing the source code is not all there is to Open Source (as the Open Source definition points out in the first sentence). It's easy to arrive at that misunderstanding however, many people merely take the definitions of the words "open" and "source" and arrive at that conclusion.

For a more thorough understanding of the differences between the Open Source and Free Software movements, I encourage you to read the definitions of both terms and this essay because it does not address one movement or the other by name calling like the OSI's FAQ does.

Re:Why was it not under the GPL to begin with?

[aridhol]

Is there any reason that everything must be GPL'd?

<RANT>
Why is it that every time a project announces that it is changing it licensing to be GPL, somebody has to ask why it wasn't before? Why does it matter? Really? Who cares why it changed, why it wasn't GPL before, or even that it is GPL now?
</RANT>

Re:But what about the ROM licenses?

[Tseran]

The biggest problem with some of the ROMs, even though a lot are Abandonware is that some game makers are realizing that we want to play these old games and are releasing them as packages like Nameco Museum on the GBA and the Pac Man collection too. Who knows, other games may appear this way too.

Say what you want about MAME...

[dasunt]

Sure, there are people who are interested in only piracy, and there are people who are only interested in free games, but in a hundred years, the reason why we will have copies of arcade games from 1975 on up will be because of emulations projects like MAME.

I don't condone piracy to avoid paying for the latest game or to avoid paying a theater for a movie. But there is a difference between downloading GTA3 and downloading a 25 year old ROM that is not available for commercial sale. Not legally, but ethically.

(Btw, support Capcom. They are one of the few companies that will sell [some] older rom images)