Slashdot Mirror
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."
I don't think many people ever gave much thought to the licensing of MAME itself. I mean, it's nice that it's possibly joining the ranks of the open source movement, but the whole licensing and legality of the rom images I think is a far more restrictive dilemma...
Now if the games themselves were being made GPL, now that would be some great news!
In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
It's nice that MAME is going open-source, but the code has been there to steal all along. There were parts to which modification was illegal, but plenty of developers went ahead and did just that, forking their own versions. Maybe now the version forks can be reintegrated into the MAME mother tree.
(I don't remember the names of these forks but a Google search should pick a few up)
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
The developers were able to add back the gambling type (fruit machines, blackjack, poker, etc.) games. I think the main reason for the source not being under the GPL was because of a) Nicola not liking the gambling games and b) The fear that the newer and still for sale Capcom, NeoGeo, and other roms may be added by someone causing pircay of new software. I do agree with not adding in current games that are still making money for their copyright holders. The crime of owning ROM images you do not own is still just as illegal regardless of their age unless the copyright has expired. I think the intentions of not emulating newer games was to help MAME "fly under the radar" of the IDSA. As for the non-emulation of gambling type arcade games...well...it's a shame that someone would STOP others from adding that to the source.
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
But what if you can't find the cartridge or what if it was never on a cartridge? Some ROM's came from consoles right? So how would you license one of those? I think there needs to be a consolidated effort to petition the companies who own the rights to the games in question and beg/plead/threaten/nag/etc until they release their games under the GPL or some other license that would allow us to play them without having to keep an eye out for "the man".
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Was there any reason why it was started with the other license scheme? Are there any unique reasons why it should not be GPL'd?
The reason that it started with the different licensing scheme was basically control. The MAME developers wanted to have as much control of the program as possible while still staying open source. This way, they could make decisions for the majority of the MAME programs out there, such as not letting gambling games or new games for old hardware (specifically new Neo-Geo games) appear in the program, as well as keeping MAME from appearing in a commercial product and thus increasing its profile in the gaming industry.
Basically, they wanted to keep MAME as low profile as possible by keeping it out of commercial products and under the radar of companies whose games they emulate, such as SNK/Playmore or Capcom. Why they're considering GPLing it now when none of those issues have been resolved is beyond me.
Even if the company doesn't exist anymore, SOMEBODY probably still has the rights to the software.
If the game's publisher has been out of business for more than ten years, and the publisher was not bought by IDSA, it's pretty safe to assume that whoever owns the game's copyright doesn't even know he owns it. The chance of the copyright owner actually finding out about your piracy and taking action are about the same as the chance of a software patent holder doing the same on a random original program.
Just look at "Zero Wing", an old arcade game. Toaplan, its publisher, has been out of business for a long time. Had the company who bought Toaplan's copyrights known about the song and music video that sampled parts of "Zero Wing", then we probably would have seen legal sparks fly a couple months into the "All Your Base" craze. But we didn't.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You do have the right to play the rom from a cartridge you own on your computer. I was feeling kind of dirty because I spent a week(yes, a week... It was a single 735MB zip file containing two nero image files and a cracked gta3.exe) downloading GTA3 for PC off of FastTrack. Then it occurred to me that I SHOULD be able to play the PC version, as it is essentially (but not literally) the same intellectual property as the PS2 game, which I own (or have purchased the right to play). The only reason I spent the time downloading it is because of the growing gta3 mod community; something you can not take advantage of on the PS2. BTW, it works beautifully and the mods, for the most part, are super sweet.
So, am I right? If I'm not right, than do the people who own those old cartridges really have the right to play the roms in mame?
put the what in the where?
all console games come with a license that says that you cannot make any copies of the game, including for back-up purposes.
In the United States, the backup law (17 USC 117) gives the owner of a copy the right to make those copies and adaptations necessary to run a program. The Betamax and Diamond Rio precedents give the owner of a copy the right to time-, space-, and format-shift a copyrighted work. And no, I did not see the "EULA" printed in the manual before I handed over the cash at Best Buy, so I don't think it's all that enforceable in a court of law.
See here for Nintendo's policy.
That's a publisher's official line, and it includes no citations of any court cases that support the company's position.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I disagree with you there...
Open source means, to me, that they let you look at it, download it, mess with it, etc.
Open Source (capitals) means the political licenses put out by OSI/FSF as a way of influencing developers, to try and get their licenses rendered legally enforceable.
I personally think that OSI is almost as bad as ICANN is, but there is a lot more need for OSI than there is for ICANN. Just, the implimentation if it should be different.
Sure there is. Unless there's a discovery rule in play, the statute of limitations on copyright infringement is something like what, 2 years? 3?
It won't give you good title like adverse possession will, but it's basically the same thing if you don't plan to redistribute.
Incidentally, adverse possession also applies to physical objects, although then there typically is a discovery rule in play, IIRC.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
And realistically, the OSI can hardly be surprised. They started out by claiming that a different term should be used than "Free Software" because "Free" was ambiguous, ao instead they felt it should be called "Open Source", which is no less ambiguous at all if you're using the term to mean something other than just that the source is available. I've always wondered whether any of the people claiming this believed what they were saying. It's hard to see how they could have done. Not that I have a major problem with either term, just the reasoning given was... unconvincing.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
I own a sit down Star Trek - Strategic Operation Simulator. The game is in working order (but needs some work on the monitor). As an owner of the original ROMs, I consider MAME to be my Fair Use backup. I am legally using the ROMs for that game.
It might just be they wanted more control up until now. I've seen some projects go form totally closed source to totally open (as in public domain) source. It's a matter of what the author feels like. For example Zsnes was orignally closed source, binary only release. I don't know whay, that's just what the authors wanted. Later, they decided they'd rather open it up, I believe under the GPL. They just reached a point where they didn't care about control, and wanted more people helping on the project and so opend it up.
I will be quite happy if MAME goes GPL, as it will solve this problem.
How about just GAME? I guess that would get confusing pretty quickly.
Essentially the MAME cores make writing emulators for things much easier because all the really hard work is already done (wanna write a DOS emulator for Linux? take MAME's OPL core, 8086 CPU core, throw on some graphics emulation, and shazam!)
Emulation in general is going to become more and more important in the future for supporting legacy and closed-source software, so this could be very useful for the open-source community.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
Did they get permission from all of the authors to approve the license change of their code? I never heard anything. Granted, my contributions were minor and happened years ago but it would still have been nice to be notified before reading about the license change on slashdot...
Apparently they do not, judging by how frequently and how stridently you have to make this clarification about the Kaillera library. It's even an entry in your FAQ, which says something right there.
There are hundreds of pieces of software that are open source that DO NOT have a Mac port.
This implies that these hundreds of pieces of software are somehow equivalent to Kaillera and/or applicable to MAME. They are not.
Perhaps instead of trying to persuade us to open-souce Kaillera, you could put that energy into porting more of the readily available software that is out there.
Oddly enough, porting commercial software to the Mac (games, specifically) is my day job. Porting non-commercial software is what I do in the evenings and on weekends. :-)
The path of least resistance to a Mac version of Kaillera would be if someone who was interested could download the source and do a port, e.g. open-source. There are other options as well: the Kaillera programmer could do it, or he could hand the code over to a Mac programmer to do. The last option does not imply open-source.
I do Mac ports for a living; this year alone I've personally done Civ3, Jedi Knight 2 and Star Wars: Galactic Battlegronds, all closed source. Clearly these large companies with lots of trade secrets don't have any hesitation over Mac versions of their very proprietary bits of software, so there's no reason at all why Kaillera couldn't be ported to the Mac even if it stayed closed source and you guys didn't have the time or desire to do it.
While you're certainly not the only software developers to avoid a Mac version, that does not invalidate any criticism of your decision. Frankly I don't see what the big deal is - the Kaillera faq mentions that you're flirting with open-sourcing it anyway. Given how uptight and defensive this topic makes you, I'd say it's good that you're considering that.