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."

46 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. But what about the ROM licenses? by mooman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/
    1. Re:But what about the ROM licenses? by mrseigen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That would be neat. I think it would be a good idea to start some kind of website dedicated to petitioning arcade companies to release their ROMS to the general public to boot.

    2. Re:But what about the ROM licenses? by mooman · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
    3. Re:But what about the ROM licenses? by Tseran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      .sig: It's what's for dinner.
  2. OT - How many Roms are legal? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    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. Re:OT - How many Roms are legal? by DdJ · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sure there is. The concept is known colloquially as squatters rights. If you abandon real property, other people can come along and "steal it" if they settle down on it and improve it.
      That applies to land, buildings, and the like. There is no related concept for intellectual property.

      There is no legal grey area here.
    3. Re:OT - How many Roms are legal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm sorry, how does this follow? I have a colecovision and a handful of games, that doesn't entitle me to run anything other than THOSE versions of THOSE games in mame.

      Also, I think that at this point more people own arcade machines than people use their colecovisions. I mean, I don't use mine at all, the controller is a suck. Ditto for my intellivision, atari VCS, super pong, atari jaguar, or most of the other video game systems I own.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:OT - How many Roms are legal? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:OT - How many Roms are legal? by enrico_suave · · Score: 3, Informative

      >I have a colecovision and a handful of games, that >doesn't entitle me to run anything other than THOSE >versions of THOSE games in mame.

      actually, no... it might give you license to run those game images in MESS's colecovision emulator... but unless you have the ARCADE PCB you only making yourself feel better about your piracy... Of course you're still better than me... I don't even have the colecovision carts of the games in my MAME cabinet... *Shrug*

      e.

      --
      Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
  3. Stealing code is easy by krog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)

    1. Re:Stealing code is easy by Pr3d4t0r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe there wouldn't have been as many forks if communication with the "official" MAME developers hadn't often feel on deaf ears. Granted this was a long time ago, But I don't remember enjoying much of a dialog with the MAME folks back when I was dinking around with BeMAME. I ended up staying inside the lines for the most part, but a few minor changes here and there (header file capitalization issues IIRC) would've helped a lot.

      Whatever. Glad to see it opening up. It's fun stuff.

    2. Re:Stealing code is easy by Cryptnotic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AdvanceMAME is a good example. They modified video output to make it tweak a standard VGA card to output signals which are compatible with arcade monitors. It wasn't really cross-platform though.

      I think the thing that the MAME people objected to most was the emulation of more modern recent games.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  4. This would be great news if....... by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:This would be great news if....... by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think wrong. Other people add the recent games whether we want it or not, and we don't care when other versions add the gambling game, we'll just keep not supporting them because they're not considered video games.

      BTW, if you're curious, what makes the difference between video games and gambling games for us is whether skill can make a difference. In gambling games, all is decided by the return ratio the operator set in the configuration, and you can't change the results, whatever you do (modulo bugs in the software if there are any exploitable).

      OG.

  5. Will we have to call it.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    ..GNU/MAME ?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Will we have to call it.. by BlueGecko · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, while the FSF has not proposed that name, Microsoft proposed one very similar, although they spelled it incorrectly as "MAIM GNU."

    2. Re:Will we have to call it.. by Gridle · · Score: 5, Funny
      RMS already calls it "NAME". I'm not kidding.
      From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
      Subject: Re: MAME going GPL!?
      Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:41:15 -0400

      I hope they change the license of NAME, because the current license is not free. It is also self-contradictory.

      [lengthy bit about the word "free" that is pointless to reproduce here]
      Maybe it's the viral nature of GPL. The mere thought of moving to GPL makes you lose all control. ;-)
    3. Re:Will we have to call it.. by GunFodder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about just GAME? I guess that would get confusing pretty quickly.

  6. I never knew this was a problem to begind with... by Blimey85 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It was my understanding that the main licensing problem was with the ROM's and not the MAME software. How does one go about getting a license to a ROM? If you could find the an actual cartridge for the game you wanted to play (if it was on a cartridge to begin with), would that give you the right to play it on your computer? I guess it would. Owning it in cartridge form should allow you to play it however you damn well please as long as you aren't making copies and all that other stuff.

    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?
  7. 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.

    2. Re:Open source vs Free software by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 3

      Open source requires the user be given certain rights, not just access to the source.

      Keep your Stallmanesque ranting about "free software" versus "open source" out of the rest of the Linux community, it is divisive.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:Open source vs Free software by man_ls · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Open source vs Free software by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
  8. Re:Legal? by sweetooth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For those of us that do have boxes of cartridges filling up storage sheds or closet space emulation makes perfect sense. The fact that the majority don't have the carts doesn't mean emulation isn't usefull for those of us that do have carts. Personally I use MESS more than MAME, but that's simply because I have more old console carts than anything.

  9. Re:Why was it not under the GPL to begin with? by aridhol · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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>

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  10. Re:Mame Going OpenSource by brandorf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually I read a ruling that ROMS are legal ony if you have the actual media the roms came from. i.e. the ROM chips (or things like the MVS cart that Neo-Geo used). If you meant cartriges as in having the NES version of Galaga allows you to play Galaga in MAME, that's still illegal, oddly enough. Though owning things like the Playstion Namcomuseum does allow you to do this, because the Roms are included on the CD.

    --


    Bork Bork Bork!!
  11. Re:Why was it not under the GPL to begin with? by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. Clearly the GPL *IS* viral! by Dawn+Keyhotie · · Score: 5, Funny
    Clearly the GPL must be a virus, a cancer, a Pac-Man! What else could explain the continuing barrage of both open and proprietary software converting to the GPL/LGPL? Is RMS twisting their arms? Holding their children for ransom? Asking too many rhetorical questions?


    Hah! You never heard of a software package spontaneously converting from GPL to the revered and exalted Windows EULA, have you? Proof that Windows is NOT viral, cancerous, or Pac-Man, and is therefore infinitely superior! So There, GPL weenies!


    Now I will prove which cup contains the Iocaine powder! [sip] Bwahahahahaha! Bwahahahahaha! Erk...

    --
    "The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
  13. Legality of Emulating ROMs you own under copyright by Nathanbp · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know about arcarde ROMs, but all console games come with a license that says that you cannot make any copies of the game, including for back-up purposes. So even if you own the game, it might now be legal to emulate on the computer.
    See here for Nintendo's policy.
    Or try a google search for emulation legal

  14. They probably forgot they even owned it by yerricde · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:They probably forgot they even owned it by RevAaron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What does it matter if someone sued over it? It's still illegal. [1] Often enough, people jaywalk in front of cops without getting thrown in jail. Does that mean the government has changed their mind? No. It's just not worth persuing.

      In many cases, someone still owns the rights to particular abandonware, and even if a bunch of warez kidz think it's unfair that they can't use some company's refuse doesn't mean it's not illegal. A couple years ago, a bunch of NeXT cube users offered to pay the full retail price for the current WP8 for a copy WordPerfect for NeXTSTEP, but they were declined. Told that while they still owned the rights, they weren't interested in selling them, and reminded these folks that they couldn't let them give it away either. The leader of the group told WP in his contacts that he was goign to give his pals his copy of WP for NS then. They never brought the BSA over to his house or sued him, even though WP acknowledged what he was doing was illegal and going against their license and "rights."

      [1] Not that it bothers me.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  15. You bring up a good point... by bhsx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:You bring up a good point... by blincoln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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).

      I would buy this if you were talking about having a tape copy of a DVD you own, because the film only gets made once.

      However, the same game for different consoles means spending development time on all of the versions. They're the same game, but different products.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  16. MAME was not open source by Goonie · · Score: 3, Informative
    "Open Source" does not just mean "free to read the source". Most people use it to mean "distributed under an OSI-approved license". OSI approval is granted on whether the license meets their "open source definition" - which is actually all but identical to the Debian project's definition of "Free Software" and very similar to the GNU project's definition of free software.

    Though the philosophies behind "open source" and "free software" are divergent, a piece of software that is open source is almost always free software (the only difference is on the margins, where OSI accepts a couple of more onerous licenses than RMS is prepared to).

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  17. Re:Then why was it removed from the GPL? by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 3, Informative

    The initial reason is that one of the cpu cores added in 0.27 had a gpl-incompatible license.

    OG.

  18. Re:Blackjack is a game of skill. by Olivier+Galibert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A fair video game version of blackjack would be beatable. What makes you think the video gambling games out there are anywhere near fair? Especially when the people programming them tell you to never, ever play them?

    OG.

  19. Legal Copy of Star Trek by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  20. Re:You missed the point of my question by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  21. Some background information of MAME going GPL by Gridle · · Score: 5, Informative
    Damn, I expected to be able to submit this story for some quality karma whoring. Oh well, even I tend to forget things when updating mame.net at 4 am. ;-)

    One of the reasons for our own license a long time ago was to deter those who wanted to make a quick buck from selling MAME (together with illegal ROMs). It worked reasonably well - the presence of this deterrent was enough to prevent at least some of them. Even though the reality is that selling the ROMs is illegal, moving back to GPL would open us to that sort of abuse again. You must have seen the banners and popups advertising DVD to CD copy programs for a low price of $49,95 - guess what, they are nothing but GPL'd software (MPEG-2 decoders and MPEG-4 encoders) slapped on a CD. Moreover, in the case of legal trouble, it would be easier to target the original authors than those who are redistributing the illegal material. In short:

    Step 1. GPL MAME

    Step 2. ?

    Step 3. Profit!

    The legal uses of MAME (together with legal ROMs) have been explicitly allowed previously (see the Capcom Classics CD), and it has been made clear that MAME itself isn't for sale, rather just a license for the game ROMs and a free copy of MAME on top.

    Of course, we've had a fair share of problems because nobody is willing to try to enforce our current license on the most visible license violators, who currently do not redistribute the full source code changes: MAME32K (Kaillera) and the other MAME32 (not to be confused with the "right" MAME32). GPL would probably help here to force the source changes open, or to end the development of these particular derivative works. GPL would also allow us to re-use some non-critical code from other GPL'd projects, but personally I don't see this as a big advantage. Everything can be rewritten anyway.

    In any case, even if MAME were to move to GPL, I don't think the development model would change much. Due to the dubious nature of ROMs, the developer mailing list and archive simply can not be public. A public CVS server would also be quite unlikely due to the support and maintainance nightmare. There haven't been any significant forks (unlike somebody mentioned here - changing one or two lines to remove the OK screen isn't forking) nor are we currently forbidding them - and I don't think GPL would change this situation.

    Oh, and if you're wondering, mame.net is handling the Slashdot effect just fine. In fact, we've served even bigger audiences successfully. Moderators should frown any attempts of gaining karma through cut'n'pasting text from mame.net ;-)

  22. GPL'd code by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There's some GPL'd code I wrote in MAME; I've been unhappy about the licensing for a while now. But it's a pretty small amount of code, and I thought the MAME license wasn't *too* awful, so I didn't pursue it.

    I will be quite happy if MAME goes GPL, as it will solve this problem.

  23. The Kaillera.com official response. by soulctcher · · Score: 5, Informative

    First and foremost, the page that contains the version of MAME32K that we "redistribute" DOES have the full source code changes quite visibly available.

    Let me move on to the next point. Kaillera is NOT, I repeat, NOT MAME32K. Kaillera is a client/server application and .dll that allow programs to communicate over the internet that normally would not do so. Emulation is the MOST NATURAL application of the Kaillera solution due to the popularity of arcade/console games, and the interest that people have in playing against real people, instead of the computer.

    You have stated: GPL would probably help here to force the source changes open, or to end the development of these particular derivative works.

    This is a closed-minded view at the effects of moving to the GPL. The simple fact is that true open sourcing of a program with as much interest as MAME would bring more interest to its cousins. Frequently, Kaillera has been attacked by people that have no idea how the open source licensing works. We have also been attacked by MAMEDev members who were instantly jealous at the attention that we commanded when we released new versions of the Kaillera client. This took downloads away from the core MAME project and brought them to our derivitive, MAME32K. Most of the verbal attacks that we have suffered have subsided as people began to realize that we brought people and interest to the MAME project.

    -soulctcher

    (On a more personal note: It does dissapoint me that someone as involved with MAME as you, Gridle, would not do a little homework before tossing accusations towards Kaillera.)

  24. Nitpicking... by Wiwi+Jumbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    ....yet I feel it's an important point.

    iD GPL's the source for it's Engine, not the game. The levels, textures, models, even (I believe) the actual game code that says what a rocket launcher does, and etc. are still firmly in the hands of Carmack and all.

    I think theres a group duplicating the original quakes textures and such with "GPL like" replacements.

    --
    Wiwi
    "I trust in my abilities,
    but I want more then they offer"
  25. MAME code more useful than you think by almightyjustin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The MAME code doesn't sound immediately useful, but releasing it under GPL is actually a gold mine, mainly for the CPU and sound cores. I know of several GPL projects that already use the MAME OPL emulation core under special agreements (AdPlug and DosBox); the SN76496 core would be useful for the Sarien AGI Interpreter project...

    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.

  26. Say what you want about MAME... by dasunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)