Author Topic: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction  (Read 4658 times)

Offline Sturm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Karma: +31/-0
FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« on: October 03, 2015, 02:48:51 AM »
This topic was probably discussed somewhere in the past, but... as Mame is trying to change its own license (trying to be open for real), I think it's time to bring it back.
So, the question is: why FBA uses a specific license instead an international standard one and why it uses a non-commercial restriction, which conflicts directly to the very concept of "openness" adopted by the open source world, from Open Knowledge to Wikimedia Foundations?

- http://opendefinition.org/
- http://games.slashdot.org/story/15/05/16/133227/mame-changing-license-to-fully-libre-one
- http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
- http://www.fbalpha.com/license/

Regards, Sturm
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 11:37:51 AM by Sturm »

Offline JacKc

  • FBNeo Dev
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Karma: +56/-0
  • Hasta la vista, Baby !
Re: FBA license and the non-comercial restrition
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2015, 04:44:46 AM »
Hi Sturm,

I think the best person to answer correctly to your question is Treble Winner but i will give you my point of view.

If FBA is still using a non-commercial restriction, it is because many of the FBA derivated builds are still distributed without source...Even if by the past some warnings were given to them!

In the MAME case you can notice most of the derivated builds are distributed with source (MAMEUIFX, MAME Plus, MAME Ash-Build, etc...). Few minor obscur builds are still distributed without source.

Best regards,
JacKc.


Offline iq_132

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Karma: +411/-0
  • Definitely not Dink!
    • NeoSource
Re: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2015, 10:47:37 AM »
This topic was probably discussed somewhere in the past, but... as Mame is trying to change its own license (trying to be open for real), I think it's time to bring it back.
So, the question is: why FBA uses a specific license instead an international standard one and why it uses a non-commercial restriction, which conflicts directly to the very concept of "openness" adopted by the open source world, from Open Knowledge to Wikimedia Foundations?

- http://opendefinition.org/
- http://games.slashdot.org/story/15/05/16/133227/mame-changing-license-to-fully-libre-one
- http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
- http://www.fbalpha.com/license/

Regards, Sturm

I don't like people making money from my hard work.


Offline Barry Harris

  • dontbeabarry
  • *
  • Posts: 1785
  • Karma: +0/-65535
  • I'm Barry Harris and I like to f*** people over
Re: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2015, 03:01:39 PM »
We are also bound by the original Finalburn license.

Any discussion after that is utterly futile.
Account of Barry Harris; the traitor.
Send me an e-mail at barry@fbalpha.com letting me know how big of a piece of sh** I am.

Offline Sturm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Karma: +31/-0
Re: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2015, 04:23:50 PM »
Thanks for the replies, folks!  :smilie:
So, let's continue...
I don't like people making money from my hard work.
I understand your point, iq_132. But, in a second thought, perhaps you may notice that the real freedom relies under the remove of any non-commercial restriction. Take a look at the free software world. If you pay attention to it, you will find the four essential freedoms, and the very first and crucial one is (called "Level 0" freedom):
Quote
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for ANY PURPOSE (freedom 0).
Imagine, for example, if Linux could be blocked by a  non-commercial restriction. Or even Wikipedia! Would us be allowed to use and teach Wikipedia inside private schools? Would Android be used inside billions of devices? And how about the thousands of commercial projects using Arduino? Think about it! The Free Software Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, the Open Knowledge Foundation... all of them rejects completely the non-commercial restrictions. And now, even MAME developers. Richard Stallman stated once that the non-commercial restriction is so awful that if you want to use it, you must use a non-derivative restriction attached, to "kill the dirtiness right from the beginning". I am long time contributor to the open knowledge world and I am always happy when I see someone spreading the work done (getting money from it or not).

Obviously contrary opinions must be respected. But I think that is not a bad idea to allow us to review some of our opinions.

Regards,
Sturm
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 04:35:55 PM by Sturm »

Offline Sturm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Karma: +31/-0
Re: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2015, 04:30:50 PM »
We are also bound by the original Finalburn license. Any discussion after that is utterly futile.
I can imagine you're tired of discussing this issue. Or that many people have been disrespectful to ask about it to you. However, I do not think discuss and clarify the issue is something "utterly futile".
Let me speculate a bit and correct me if I'm wrong. Dave, the author of much of the emulator code, is he still active? Does anyone have his contact? Perhaps he might be interested in relicense the code.

Regards,
Sturm
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 04:32:32 PM by Sturm »

Offline dink

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Karma: +449/-1
  • pie? I nearly bought one!
Re: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2015, 05:04:08 PM »
Dave's original license is perfect.  and iq_132 has a good point.

Offline Haze

  • MAME Devs
  • *****
  • Posts: 184
  • Karma: +47/-0
Re: FBA license and the non-commercial restriction
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2015, 05:30:40 PM »
there's also the issue that the code Final Burn has from MAME comes from versions of MAME where the non-commerical clause existed.

they would have to seek permission to relicense that just as we have, or re-port things