Some thoughts on licencing.
Most emulator projects use the #GPL license because their projects are community driven.
You can tell when a project has a company focus in mind by looking at the license.
When a project is a GPL one, what the project wants to do is to protect the members work by forcing companies to return the code.
@blabber Consumers do not benefit from having the source code closed. They cannot learn, improve or redistribute proprietary software, therefore the only freedom that BSD and MIT provide is the freedom of closing the user's freedom.
Companies do benefit from closing the source code, but users don't.
They explained that they wouldn't do that because other companies had already abused the work of the community without giving back a thing. So in order to protect people's work, copyleft was a requirement.
@deusfigendi @downey @lorabe @blabber I’m curious I’ve seen this dual licensing approach how does that work in practise? Why is it effectively different from the most permissive (or least permissive) of the two? When I contribute dual licensed code back to a project how does it being MPL+GPL benefit the people
The point is: You can combine it with other software of either license.
Hard to explain in 500 characters:
If you use copyleft a derivate has to use the same license.
If you combine two works to one (like using a libary) and one has copyleft the result has to be the same license
If you combine two works and both have copyleft it has to be the same license otherwise it's illegal.
If a work has two copyleft licences the re-user can choose which of those she uses.
@deusfigendi @dch @downey @lorabe @blabber Re dual-licensing you might be interested in https://reuse.software. It makes sure that your declaration of licensing and copyright is standardised and can be easily read by humans and tools. Thanks to SPDX expressions, is as simple as: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-only OR EUPL-1.2
However, GitHub doesn't show multi-licensing nicely, yet, but with #REUSE it's clearer.
BTW: There are some compatible copyleft licenses, at least one-directional.
one small thing could be improved: commercial is not equal to proprietary. you can sell GPL code
indeed, also I forgot a sentence in the first case. Something like "than we can choose a single copyleft license"
Well it was made a little quick 'n dirty XD
But hey it's GPL so everyone may improve it :D
@deusfigendi did you publish the source?
(well, when it's GPL, you have to provide the source, but i think that license does not fit images well. CC is made for that)
erm well sure I did
just *click click* well I *click* yes I did it dayyyyys ago!
@lorabe you can’t force people nor companies to “collaborate”, they have to have some motivation or incentive. After 30 years of software development I don’t believe there’s a significant difference in project behaviour as a result of licence choices. Companies contribute when they see it’s in their interest. People do when they have some satisfaction or pride in the outcome. All gross generalisations of course. Are emulators so different?
@dch In the emulation community, many people know how belligerent companies can be, like sony trying to stop ps emulation through demands even though is completely legal.
As a result of that, the majority of the emulators are the result of many years of community work and a lot of passion.
People don't want their work to be taken away and closed by companies, if they want the software, they must comply with licenses that are primarily fair with the community and the consumer.
For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).