Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MAME To Become GPL?

Posted by timothy on from the would-be-nice dept.

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."

3 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Re:OT - How many Roms are legal? by DdJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  2. Open source vs Free software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Open source vs Free software by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Digital Citizen