LWN: Comments on "MAME is now Free and Open Source Software"

I expect no licensing problem

paulj — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:21:04 +0000

Having briefly discussed this kind of thing with a lawyer, about how much technicalities matter, I believe the answer is "not much" (of themselves). The law and the legal profession operate at a different level. They can consider intent and effects in much more abstract terms, including taking human factors into account, far far removed from technicalities. Indeed the (Anglo-common-law type jurisdiction) lawyer I've spoken to says that such abstraction is _good_ legal practice and what they're trained to do.

It's been interesting to read programmers discuss legal stuff ever since then...

I expect no licensing problem

paulj — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 15:15:02 +0000

Well, all code is data to whatever executes it, yes.

It sounds like the kind of technicality that impresses programmers, but lawyers and judges will happily ignore and "look through" using whatever *legal* reasoning and abstractions they decide are appropriate. Just as how programmers can think dynamic v static linking, address spaces, and IPC seem important - yet courts can trivially abstract those away for legal purposes.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

k8to — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:21:04 +0000

However, they worked actively to track down and get those rights sorted out.

GOG or someone else could try to do the same for arcade roms. It's (now) a potential business opportunity.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

k8to — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:19:09 +0000

MAME has at least partial support for one or two ancient games (1970s) where the circuitry is more-or-less custom. I'm don't think ASICs come around until the 1980s, so it wouldn't use that. I don't know the tech involved, but it was essentially a game-in-circuit with a rom containing some game data.

Given that the MAME drivers here are simply attempting to reverse engineer the game-in-circuit, the argument could be made that it's derived from the game.

But I agree with the vast majority, the hardware is not truly game specific.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

khim — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:36:55 +0000

<blockquote>There were quite a bit of custom-build ASIC, up to custom Motorola 68k</blockquote>

All the examples you cite include some clever techniques, true, but it's completely non-obvious how content of a particular game could be tied to these: they are very low-level. I'm pretty sure that some of these could be creative to deserve a copyright by themselves - but even that will not be easy to prove, to stretch copyright of a game which utilizes these specialized ASIC to cover ASICs as well they must offer something significantly more specialized, I'm afraid.

Think PC clones: they copied little quirks of IBM PC (for example the way how keyboard controller controller drives NMI line), but IBM was unsuccessful in stopping the clones.

<blockquote>This is true for all the pre-'90s games, before the arcades became just consoles (or PCs) with big cabinets.</blockquote>

Which also makes problem with MAME less acute: where is the copyright notice in all these chips, hmm? You needed it <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_Implementa...">till March 1, 1989</a> for your copyright to be valid, after all!

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

khim — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:24:48 +0000

Sure, but now they could try to find copyright owners and get their permissions. Before MAME was relicensed it was impossible: even if they could get rights for the ROMs they couldn't repackage them into nice self-contained binary to run said rom on Linux, Windows, or Mac!

Problem of abandonware does not have an easy solution, but GOG at least could solve problem of games where owner IS known. And there are thousands of these.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

gioele — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:07:00 +0000

> They were never THAT special. Yes, they used purpose-built hardware, but I don't think they ever used ASICs built for a specific game.

There were quite a bit of custom-build ASIC, up to custom Motorola 68k, cf. <http://arcadehacker.blogspot.de/2015/05/capcom-cps1-part-...> for example.

> MAME only emulates standard components which were used in these cabinets - but also in many-many-many other pieces of hardware.

The MAME source code if full of very peculiar deviations from the standard components. See, for example, <https://github.com/mamedev/mame/blob/e569891ef57439b5650f...>.

> Game-specific hardware connections are described as part of the .rom file

No, the main purpose of MAME is to document how those chips were wired together. The description is in the MAME drivers, the ROM files just contain dumps of the memory chips. This is true for all the pre-'90s games, before the arcades became just consoles (or PCs) with big cabinets.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

dgm — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 18:10:49 +0000

> MAME is designed to run <insert random ROM here>

So far nobody has claimed copyright on hardware boards design, which is the only thing that MAME could conceivably be a derivative of. In any case, the license would make no difference.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

rahvin — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:51:59 +0000

GOG only sells games they have a license to sell, they do not sell abandonware that I'm aware of. AFAIK every game listed on GOG is authorized to be there by the rights owner. There are plenty of games not sold on GOG because they could not obtain the rights.

I expect no licensing problem

rahvin — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:47:32 +0000

They might even fall under DMCA as a circumvention mechanism.

Hardly, to fall under the circumvention mechanism there would actually need to be a copy protection mechanism to circumvent. An API isn't a copy protection mechanism such as DRM nor is re-implementing it breaching one.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

khim — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:56:16 +0000

They were never THAT special. Yes, they used purpose-built hardware, but I don't think they ever used ASICs built for a specific game. MAME only emulates standard components which were used in these cabinets - but also in many-many-many other pieces of hardware. Game-specific hardware connections are described as part of the .rom file, I believe - and these .rom files are SUPPOSED to be derived work from these games! By definition!

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

jallman — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:21:40 +0000

Archive.org[1] maintains a collection of MAME and MESS files including full ROM packs.

The licensing is questionable, IANL YMMV etc, but at least it is a legitimate source.

[1]: https://archive.org/details/messmame

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

pizza — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:33:36 +0000

Remember that these arcade machines were (generally speaking) speciality hardware built for a specific game.

One could make a reasonable argument about how MAME (or at least parts of it) is actually derived from some of these games.

Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch, but far sillier copyright arguments have prevailed in court.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

khim — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:07:16 +0000

Where the hell this discussion have started and why? When you place MAME, ROM and some kind of icon on your CD you are creating a "compilation" (legal term from the very same 17 USC 101!). That's legal only if you have permissions from all the authors. You may or may not create "derived work", that's irrelevant.

There a literally billions of devices in existence where bash, glibc, linux kernel and dozen of other programs are distributed on the same medium as proprietary program. Heck, that's how ChromeOS or typical WiFi router is built!

It would be really hard to explain how ChromeOS could be "a mere aggregation" of bash and Adobe Flash yet MAME+ROM is somehow falls outside of that definition. I'm pretty certain someone will try to do that (punishment for bringing crazy claims to the court is ridiculously low in US), but I don't see how s/he could succeed and keep the software industry from falling into pieces.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

malor — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 09:43:04 +0000

You're probably right. MAME+ROMs would probably fall under 'mere aggregation', rather than 'derivative work'.

But I'm not certain enough of that to actually bet on it.

I expect no licensing problem

BrucePerens — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 06:07:22 +0000

It's not that dynamic linking creates a derivative work. Linking has nothing to do with it. It's that API use can create a derivative work. The appeal in Oracle v. Google changed the rules we thought we were under since CAI v. Altai. and APIs are now potentially copyrightable despite their functional nature. API shims are no use either. They're a copyright-avoidance mechanism and probably easy to show as one in court. They might even fall under DMCA as a circumvention mechnism.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

butlerm — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 04:38:23 +0000

// A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. (17 USC 101) //

The idea that placing two works on the same medium creates a derivative work in and of itself is highly questionable because there is little or no originality applied. It does not create an original work of *authorship* in other words, and copyright is all about authorship and creative expression. You can't copyright facts, you can't copyright sweat of the brow, you can't copyright mere aggregation, and so on.

Two works on the same medium not only do not constitute on original work of authorship - they are not something that has been "recast, transformed, or adapted" from base works either. The result of static linking two files together maybe, but surely not two files from different sources just sitting next to each other.

I expect no licensing problem

butlerm — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 04:14:05 +0000

If dynamic linking creates derivative works - a proposition that is highly questionable because there is no creativity involved - it creates ones that are completely legal in the United States under a plain reading of 17 USC 117:

"(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or ..."

Not just dynamic linking, but static linking too.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

khim — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 00:40:20 +0000

You are missing forest for the trees. There are tons of DOS games on GOG. Hundreds, not thousands, sure, but hey, that's better than nothing. They come with preconfigured dosbox (with sources: my guess is that packagers just found it easier to supply sources instead of trying to keep track of dosbox versions).

Open-source release of MAME means that other, non-DOS releases are now "fair game". Some classics have such a convoluted history that it's basically impossible to find our who owns right for what, but many would be sold on GOG, I'm sure.

Best of all: combination of GPLed MAME and commercial ROM (I'm pretty sure that very few would object against "mere aggregation" clause here: ROM is most definitely not made for MAME and MAME does not need any particular ROM to be useful) means that once you've bought one particular game you could play it literally anywhere - on your desktop, on your phone and so on.

I expect no licensing problem

nix — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 20:39:10 +0000

A shared library is, *to ld.so* (as long as there are no ifunc resolvers in it), but as soon as ld.so's job is done, the processor executes it directly, so any claim it might have to be 'just data' is somewhat tenuous. In MAME's case the processor that executes it is not on the machine and may no longer be in existence anywhere. I suppose it's still a processor, but then so is MMIX, in the same sense...

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

ledow — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:48:45 +0000

The Atari roms site is now dead, I think.

Some of the modern re-makes of certain things are basically the game ROM's in a primitive emulator. Even some games on things like Steam are that way.

And even back in the PC DOS days, I had a Williams game pack that was basically Joust ROMs etc. in emulators wrapped in a menu.

There are also licensed ROMs in things like cheap retro "multi-game" controllers designed to plug into your TV.

But there's no other "download-and-play" kind of thing that's legit, as far as I know.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

malor — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:09:44 +0000

Well, I think the argument there would be more accurately presented as: "MAME plus ROMs, distributed on the same media, is a derivative work of MAME, and thus legal only if you can provide the source for the ROMs."

I think that's probably wrong, mind, but that's how I would summarize it.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

mpr22 — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:40:15 +0000

The difference is that "APIs can be copyrighted" is consistent with time's arrow even though it is stuevilpid, while "the ROMs of Sinistar (Williams, 1982) are a derivative work of MAME" is not thus consistent.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

mattdm — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:27:27 +0000

Are there any ROMs which are available for non-restricted distribution? As far as I know, those at http://mamedev.org/roms/ are only available for non-commercial use and only distributable from that site directly.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

Wol — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 13:23:07 +0000

Thing is, if MAME comes after (and the ROMs are frozen in time), then it would have to be MAME is a derivative of the ROM.

And I think that would be very hard to argue with a straight face, given that MAME is designed to run <insert random ROM here>.

Cheers,
Wol

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

malor — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 13:15:09 +0000

That seems right to me, but in a world where APIs can be copyrighted, who knows?

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

mpr22 — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:49:56 +0000

The ROMs are not derivative works of MAME (most of them are, after all, older than MAME), and thus someone putting ROMs + MAME on a CD would indeed be engaged in "mere aggregation" which is not a violation of the GPL.

I expect no licensing problem

jengelh — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:45:59 +0000

>the application it *runs* isn't linked in, it's *data*

At this point, one could ask "isn't a shared library (..file) basically raw data to ld.so, and isn't a Linux kernel module (..file) basically raw data to the init_module syscall?" This is why licenses rather talk about derivative status.

I expect no licensing problem

wahern — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:21:54 +0000

That logic also applies to file sharing networks, which likewise are superficially neutral wrt usage, supporting both legal and illegal activities. Yet SCOTUS found Grokster liable for contributory infringement. The famous Sony Betamax case made "substantial non-infringing uses" a defense, but it was weakened when MGM v. Grokster carved out an inducement exception.

I'd be surprised if the MAME developers were ever found liable for anything. But certainly there are many parallels between MAME and Grokster in terms of both their raison d'etre and how they're used in practice. More than that, there are many unique aspects to MAME and the MAME community that are especially problematic. Hypotheticals alone won't suffice to show substantial non-infringing uses, and ideally you'd want to show what makes MAME or something like MAME uniquely useful for non-infringing activities. (Those aren't required legal elements, but they're the best kind of evidence.) Still, it's a stretch.

OTOH, anyone who packages and sells MAME would be inviting a lawsuit, and not of the frivolous kind. Contributory infringement doesn't require a profit making entity, but such an entity makes a good target for both plaintiff and judge, especially when trying to prove inducement.

FWIW, I'm not a lawyer either.

I expect no licensing problem

david.a.wheeler — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:54:27 +0000

I'm not a lawyer, but my initial thoughts are that when MAME runs an application, the application is basically *data* to MAME, and thus MAME under the GPL can run arbitrary applications (even proprietary ones).

This is just like Java Virtual Machine (JVM) implementations and applications compiled to JVM - the JVM implementation might be licensed under the GPL, but the application it *runs* isn't linked in, it's *data* to the JVM.

QEMU is a widely-used emulator that is also licensed under the GPL - http://wiki.qemu.org/License - and people use it to run all sorts of FLOSS and proprietary programs.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

pizza — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:49:14 +0000

One huge advantage of this re-licensing is that it's finally possible to re-use bits of the MAME codebase in other projects.

MAME is now Free and Open Source Software

malor — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:23:20 +0000

Huh, that's interesting. I wonder if they're trying to get to a full BSD-style license, and this is an interim step?

The biggest immediate impact I can think of: the original license, IIRC, was pretty much designed to stop people from bundling MAME with ROMs on CDs and selling them on EBay. I guess they've decided that such bundles aren't anathema after all.

Although, it may end up functioning the same way. If you ship MAME plus freely available ROMs, for which there frequently *is* no source code anymore, are you infringing the GPL? I could see arguing it either way. The ROMs don't need MAME to run, and MAME doesn't need any specific ROM to run, so perhaps it's not infringing the GPL to distribute them together. MAME plus ROMs may not be a derivative work of MAME. (the relevant GPLv2 clause: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Is MAME plus some ROMs a mere aggregation? Dunno.)

This, of course, is in reference to freely available ROMs... shipping ones that are still under restrictive licenses, which is nearly all of them, would be directly verboten. The GPL doesn't even need to get involved.

I don't really see anything but potential upside here. It's no worse than it was, and it might be better. It's already in Linux distros, so they're probably not gaining anything, but surely someone, somewhere will benefit.