The MAME license is a joke....
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:28:47 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Mark Nipper wrote: > > > > > Also the derivative works clause. The license basically says "you can > > > distribute derivatives, but we consider a derivative work to be _____". > > > To be open source you have to be allowed to distribute derivatives > > > according > > > to the standard definition. You can't get around that by redefining > > > derivative. > > > > Just to be clear though it actually says: > > --- > > Derivative works are allowed, provided their source code is freely > > available. However, these works are discouraged. > > I was alluding to this paragraph: > > There are some specific modifications to the source code which go against > the spirit of the project. They are NOT considered a derivative work, and > distribution of executables containing them is strictly forbidden. > > That's like saying "we consider a derivative work to be a work for which you > have paid us a million dollars. See, we're open source, we allow derivative > works". They could just as well redefine source code. "We don't consider > files with the extension .c to be source code, so you can't distribute them, > but we're open source, because we do let you distribute all the source code". > > > Which certainly isn't to say such works aren't allowed. > > Well, you're allowed to *have* them, but distributing them is strictly > forbidden. > > > Only that there are definitive restrictions placed on them. > > If I only let you distribute my work after paying me a million dollars, > that work is being allowed with restrictions too. So? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xmame mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/xmame > _______________________________________________ Xmame mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/xmame
