| Summary: | mame license very out of date | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Avuton Olrich <avuton> |
| Component: | [OLD] Games | Assignee: | Gentoo Games <games> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | trivial | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: | licenses/mame | ||
|
Description
Avuton Olrich
2009-03-30 03:20:00 UTC
Created attachment 186707 [details]
licenses/mame
Actually, now that I look at it, the wrong file was committed as the license in the first place. The file that was committed was more of a readme (docs/mame.txt) when the license should have been committed (docs/license.txt).
sdlmame has never used the xmame license. I have no idea where you saw that I said that. You just made my point. sdlmame has never used the xmame license. Not only that, when the gentoo developer put the license in the gentoo overlay he put the wrong thing. Whatever is in the 'xmame' license is not the xmame license but the README (with a different name). avuton@rocket ~ $ grep LICENSE local-portage/gentoo/games-emulation/sdlmame/sdlmame-0.129.ebuild LICENSE="XMAME" So, what I am suggesting is that we not only change the name, but that we put the /correct/ contents into the license because it has /never/ been correct, and even if it were at one time it would be extremely out of date. Thanks! You're confusing the XMAME license and xmake license. There's not a compelling reason to change the name of the license so that aspect isn't interesting to me either. (In reply to comment #4) > You're confusing the XMAME license and xmake license. Mr Bones, I'm not confusing anything. The /contents of the license/ are incorrect and they are /out of date/ and the contents of this file have not been updated since /2001/. A Gentoo dev long ago included docs/mame.txt as the license. /This is not the license/ docs/license.txt is. Furthermore, even if the Gentoo dev who committed it put the docs/license.txt it would be very outdated by now. It would be smart to commit an updated license like I have attached. This is not hard. > There's not a compelling reason to change the name of the license so that > aspect isn't interesting to me either. I really don't give a rats ass about changing the name. Just as I said in the beginning we should /probably/ rename the license to mame since we should be taking the time to correct and update the contents of the file and since it even says it right in the sdlmame ebuild: # Same as xmame. Should it be renamed to MAME? LICENSE="XMAME" Stop reopening this bug. You're looking at the wrong file. |
