Talk:Licensing

Might be worth adding some text about CLAs / Jpx (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Looks good! I was thinking we could use this page to replace the license part of the source code page and as a new link for template:Infobox emulator. It might be good with a shorter/TLDR section where we explain the basics (similar to the old one), since this page goes a lot more in depth about licensing. I'll add something and we'll see how it turns out / Jpx (talk)

The template link sounds good to me. Maybe don't remove what's at the source code page just yet, and just add a "main article" hatnote that links here for now. I'm currently afk so I can't respond to the rest at the moment. -FosterHaven (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Now that we have a whole separate section for source-available licensing, would it be acceptable to use Template:~ in the "Open-source?" columns of our emulator tables as a quick shorthand for emulators that use S.A. licenses? — Anon, 07:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this whole article is written with obvious inappropriate biases and has multiple areas with misinformation. Example, the pseudo-legal suggestion that hardware manufacturers have no legal standing because of some prior patent jurisprudence is ridiculous on the face of it. Another example, the insinuation that a dual license scheme is inherently a for-profit move and putting it under CLA when that is completely irrelevant to what Dual Licensing is. The argumentative tone toward emudevs who make the personal decision to license their software they work on the way they want to is unnecessary. This should be an ELI5 page for information for the average emulation user who is unaware of how software licenses work, not an ideological soapbox to give ignorant users ammunition toward emudevs who pick a less-than-holy license. Birdybro (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)