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."

16 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/
  2. 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: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.
  4. 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 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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."
  7. 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
  8. 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 ;-)

  9. 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.)

  10. 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"