Nucore software license?
Re: Nucore software license?
ok then Mosten. What would stop someone from taking advantage of an open sourced solution then? How would you enforce it so these people would not take it for free?
Re: Nucore software license?
"ok then Mosten. What would stop someone from taking advantage of an open sourced solution then? How would you enforce it so these people would not take it for free?"
If you leave your house unlocked is it legal for someone to come in and take your belongings? The protection is through law, licensing and copywrite. The topic at this point is academic as the Nucore guys have said "Nope". Giving access to source code doesn't increase the chance for theft of the software. Steal the code, violate the license, call it your own, and you can get sued.
The plus by releasing as open source is that the code lives on beyond the original developers. If the original developers get tired of the project, someone can come along and maintain it. People can submit bug fixes and enhancements on their own dime (and this does happen on a massive scale with other projects). There is plenty of software that has released source code that makes *lots* of money. Linux, Solaris, Java, Samba, Tomcat, etc.
Anyway, I would like to repeat that open source software is not always "free software" it all depends on the license.
If you leave your house unlocked is it legal for someone to come in and take your belongings? The protection is through law, licensing and copywrite. The topic at this point is academic as the Nucore guys have said "Nope". Giving access to source code doesn't increase the chance for theft of the software. Steal the code, violate the license, call it your own, and you can get sued.
The plus by releasing as open source is that the code lives on beyond the original developers. If the original developers get tired of the project, someone can come along and maintain it. People can submit bug fixes and enhancements on their own dime (and this does happen on a massive scale with other projects). There is plenty of software that has released source code that makes *lots* of money. Linux, Solaris, Java, Samba, Tomcat, etc.
Anyway, I would like to repeat that open source software is not always "free software" it all depends on the license.
Re: Nucore software license?
If someone broke into my house, a report could be filed, and I'd know. Trouble is, if somebody can simply download the open source code, and compile it on their computer, there would have to be something in place to track and prosecute them. As of current copyright laws, infringement of copyright is illegal even if it is not called your own, and even if there is no financial gain or money involved. Again, how do you enforce it for individual users without removing all their privacy rights? And what is to stop someone from removing all trace of the copyright notice in the source code and uploading to a peer 2 peer group? I'm not telling you anything you don't already know - what you originally intended of course was to help program, improve the code, and give it guaranteed longevity, in which case you'd be better served asking to join their development team, which would get you some source code. That would make more sense than trying to enforce what can't be.
Re: Nucore software license?
]If someone broke into my house, a report could be filed, and I'd know. Trouble is, if somebody can simply download the open source code, and compile it on their computer, there would have to be something in place to track and prosecute them.
How it works is community and author policing. It's the same as with Linux and the Linux community is much larger than the community involved in Nucore. Theft in community usually has ramifications and in this specific case pretty easy to spot. Even in the Linux community which is huge, people attempt to steal code and are punished (usually shamed both publicly and financially into respecting the license).
As of current copyright laws, infringement of copyright is illegal even if it is not called your own, and even if there is no financial gain or money involved. Again, how do you enforce it for individual users without removing all their privacy rights? And what is to stop someone from removing all trace of the copyright notice in the source code and uploading to a peer 2 peer group?
The idea is that the software is better with community participation, you want it to spread somewhat. In this case, the spread is so narrow (restricted to people that *have* pin2000 machines). People that are doing things not approved by the license are punished.
I'm not telling you anything you don't already know - what you originally intended of course was to help program, improve the code, and give it guaranteed longevity, in which case you'd be better served asking to join their development team, which would get you some source code. That would make more sense than trying to enforce what can't be.
I did ask to join the development team 6 months ago. It was refused, which of course it their right. Honestly, I'm not sure that i could have been of great help, but I have stated that I could do bug hunting, small feature development, documentation and the like. Perhaps I could have contributed more, but maybe not.
Disclaimer, I am not trying to disparage the Nucore guys, they can do whatever they want, and I'm excited about this project, but I guess the question I'm asking myself, is since Nucore has publicly stated that they don't really think there is any money in this, and presumably they are all pinball guys, that why they would want to keep it closed and proprietary leaving the pinball 2000 platform in the same situation that it is now eventually. Sure we get something to help us now, but in a few years we will be right back where we started. Compare it to M.A.M.E, the idea is to preserve classic video gaming for future generations, and this is *exactly* why the source code was opened up when put to a vote.
"While MAME is available at no cost, including its source code, it is not free software because commercial use and redistribution are prohibited. That is, its license does not meet the conditions of the Open Source Definition, nor is it "free software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
In particular, MAME may be redistributed in source or binary form, either modified or unmodified, but: "Redistributions may not be sold, nor may they be used in a commercial product or activity." The main goal of this is to prevent arcade operators from installing MAME cabinets and profiting from the works of the original manufacturers of the game.
Also, redistributions of modified versions (derivative works) must include the complete corresponding source code (similar to a copyleft)."
How it works is community and author policing. It's the same as with Linux and the Linux community is much larger than the community involved in Nucore. Theft in community usually has ramifications and in this specific case pretty easy to spot. Even in the Linux community which is huge, people attempt to steal code and are punished (usually shamed both publicly and financially into respecting the license).
As of current copyright laws, infringement of copyright is illegal even if it is not called your own, and even if there is no financial gain or money involved. Again, how do you enforce it for individual users without removing all their privacy rights? And what is to stop someone from removing all trace of the copyright notice in the source code and uploading to a peer 2 peer group?
The idea is that the software is better with community participation, you want it to spread somewhat. In this case, the spread is so narrow (restricted to people that *have* pin2000 machines). People that are doing things not approved by the license are punished.
I'm not telling you anything you don't already know - what you originally intended of course was to help program, improve the code, and give it guaranteed longevity, in which case you'd be better served asking to join their development team, which would get you some source code. That would make more sense than trying to enforce what can't be.
I did ask to join the development team 6 months ago. It was refused, which of course it their right. Honestly, I'm not sure that i could have been of great help, but I have stated that I could do bug hunting, small feature development, documentation and the like. Perhaps I could have contributed more, but maybe not.
Disclaimer, I am not trying to disparage the Nucore guys, they can do whatever they want, and I'm excited about this project, but I guess the question I'm asking myself, is since Nucore has publicly stated that they don't really think there is any money in this, and presumably they are all pinball guys, that why they would want to keep it closed and proprietary leaving the pinball 2000 platform in the same situation that it is now eventually. Sure we get something to help us now, but in a few years we will be right back where we started. Compare it to M.A.M.E, the idea is to preserve classic video gaming for future generations, and this is *exactly* why the source code was opened up when put to a vote.
"While MAME is available at no cost, including its source code, it is not free software because commercial use and redistribution are prohibited. That is, its license does not meet the conditions of the Open Source Definition, nor is it "free software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
In particular, MAME may be redistributed in source or binary form, either modified or unmodified, but: "Redistributions may not be sold, nor may they be used in a commercial product or activity." The main goal of this is to prevent arcade operators from installing MAME cabinets and profiting from the works of the original manufacturers of the game.
Also, redistributions of modified versions (derivative works) must include the complete corresponding source code (similar to a copyleft)."
Re: Nucore software license?
uh, yeah, so you do know there are copies of MAME being sold right now, with kickbacks going to the MAME developers right? They have authorized sale of their open source code for the past 3 or 4 years to multiple distributors and modifications with their blessing. This is not MAME, however, and AFAIK it only uses Linux as the operating system which is open source - all other code I'm fairly sure was done from scratch. Again, since Nucore is going to be sold, how to you prevent Revenge From Mars owner # 284 in his home from downloading the open source Nucore code without paying a fee, and how do you prevent that owner in turn from uploading it somewhere else so others can pirate the code without giving the Nucore guys their due?
Perhaps you're confusing 'not for profit' for 'free' ? They want their original development time compensated for - perhaps when that is done they can start giving it away as open source?
BTW -- http://mamedev.org/licensees.html -- 4 other companies are NOT listed here, with unknown official/approved license terms. The Hanaho game controller mame package is one of those unlisted. Ultracade Arcade Legends is another. Can you guess the two others?
Perhaps you're confusing 'not for profit' for 'free' ? They want their original development time compensated for - perhaps when that is done they can start giving it away as open source?
BTW -- http://mamedev.org/licensees.html -- 4 other companies are NOT listed here, with unknown official/approved license terms. The Hanaho game controller mame package is one of those unlisted. Ultracade Arcade Legends is another. Can you guess the two others?
Re: Nucore software license?
We've kind of beat this topic to death, at this point it's all academic as the Nucore guys have said no, and I'm having to repeat points that I've made several times because people are not reading the entire thread. Key points:
* Including source code has nothing to do with the ability to sell software.
* Piracy happens if the source code is included or not.
* No source code released means that pinball 2000 is still dependent on proprietary hardware/software, which the availability of which is dependent on a couple of people.
* Including source code has nothing to do with the ability to sell software.
* Piracy happens if the source code is included or not.
* No source code released means that pinball 2000 is still dependent on proprietary hardware/software, which the availability of which is dependent on a couple of people.