Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Open-core software
Whatever reason the dev gives for a non-commercial clause in the software license, it ''should'' be of no consequence to the average end user who's just running a free emulator on their PC for their own use. Some specific circumstances, such as a developer who's making a brand new commercial game for an old system and using an emulator to test it in lieu of real hardware, ''might'' be exceptions to this, but that's where it gets pretty murky from a legal standpoint.
However, ''developers'' of emulators must take extra precaution when working with code from a non-commercial emulator. As it is by definition not free software, the code is incompatible with the GPL, and the developer must take care not to mix GPL and non-commercial code. One example where this becomes relevant is with forks of old versions of MAME prior to its re-licensing to open-source. These forks can incorporate BSD code from the newest MAME versions, but are forbidden from including GPL MAME code. It has also been argued by some that RetroArch's ability to auto-download non-commercial cores is a license violation, as RetroArch is GPL-licensed and makes profit via Patreon.
===Open-core software===
Sometimes developers choose not to release the entire source code for their projects, and instead only allow public access to ''some'' of the source code while keeping ''other'' parts closed-source. Usually, the core functionality of the program is what becomes source-available while certain bells and whistles remain proprietary, hence the term "open core". One This model is pretty rare for emulation software; one notable example of this model in the broader software world is seen with [https://about.gitlab.com/ the GitLab project], where the GitLab developers offer a paid Enterprise Edition with a few extra some additional business-focused features compared to the freely available core code in the Community Edition.
While there's some debate as to whether the stripped-down, fully source-available versions of these programs could count as FLOSS, the model as a whole is undoubtedly not fully in keeping with the ideals of the open-source movement, and it's generally often considered a compromise between wanting to sell the software and wanting to allow model that allows outside contribution contributions and/or code reusewhile still making it viable to sell the software for profit.
==CLA (Contributor License Agreement)==
