Changes

Based on the original design of a When copyright, was originally implemented in law in the time that a creative work stays protected should be finite; that iscommonwealth, it should expire. Say the protection of was only supposed to protect a copyright originally lasted given work for fourteen years from the date it was originally conceived in the commonwealth. After those fourteen yearsthat term, when the copyright "expires", would expire and the work becomes would enter the '''public domain''' (this is done to incentivize further creation of works). Long-running companies want In the United States however, the copyright term has been extended numerous times to continue profiting off keep works under the control of old workthe rights holders, which are usually not the original creators since the term is now so they often set precedents in modern law that extend this time to as long as ''one hundred (95 years'' for example) they would have died. In many western countries, Entertainment companies have a love-hate relationship with the public domain, willfully using works that are under it while preventing their own creative works from being "misused".

Mainly as In the United States, the Ninth District Court ruled in favor of emulation several times. They originally established the legality of competing software products in [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/593285/sega-enterprises-ltd-a-japanese-corporation-v-accolade-inc-a result / Sega v. Accolade], which was about console-compatible cartridges having to make use of two United States landmark casesa trademark they were not licensed to use. In that case, they found Sega at fault for misusing their trademark to limit competition. The code to use it is was considered functional in nature and could not be considered legal to reverse engineer copyrighted if it granted Accolade's cartridges access and emulate any thus interoperability. Reproducing the functionality of a systemis a matter of ''patent'' law, not copyright. More specifically <blockquote>''"If disassembly of copyrighted object code is per se an unfair use, there the owner of the copyright gains a de facto monopoly over the functional aspects of his work--aspects that were rulings which allowed commercial emulators expressly denied copyright protection by Congress. '''In order to profitenjoy a lawful monopoly over the idea or functional principle underlying a work, the creator of the work must satisfy the more stringent standards imposed by the patent laws. Sega does not hold a patent on the Genesis console. Two commercial '''"''</blockquote> A key distinction about competition as a matter of copyright law said: <blockquote>''"[[PlaystationAn]] emulators: [attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine."''</blockquote> These two factors were similarly upheld in [wikipediahttps:Bleem!|Bleem//www.courtlistener.com/opinion/767633/sony-computer-entertainment-inc-a-japanese-corporation-sony-computer/ Sony v. Connectix], which was about the researching of the PlayStation's BIOS to create an emulator that didn't need one. <blockquote>''"[Because] the Virtual Game Station is transformative, and [[wikipedia:Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station|Connectix does not merely supplant the PlayStation console, the Virtual Game Stationis a legitimate competitor in the market for platforms on which Sony and Sony-licensed games can be played. [...]] allowed Sony understandably seeks control over the ability to market for devices that play ps1 games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly."''</blockquote> <blockquote>''"If Sony wishes to obtain a lawful monopoly on pcthe functional concepts in its software, it must satisfy the more stringent standards of the patent laws. This Sony has not done."''</blockquote> Shortly after this decision, the [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/768996/sony-computer-entertainment-america-inc-a-delaware-corporation-v-bleem/ Sony v. Bleem] case evaluated whether using video game screenshots to market the emulator was considered copyright infringement. Bleem's use was considered fair, something as the screenshots were beneficial in helping users understand the emulator being compatible with the games themselves. <blockquote>''"Although Bleem is most certainly copying Sony didn't like s copyrighted material for the commercial purposes of increasing its own sales, such comparative advertising redounds greatly to the purchasing public's benefit with very little corresponding loss to the sound integrity ofSony's copyrighted material."''</blockquote> Additionally, and were sued by the perceived market impact that using the screenshots would have on Sony was considered a non-issue. <blockquote>''"Bleem's use of a handful of screen shots in its advertising will have no noticeable effect on Sony's ability to do with its screen shots what it chooses. If sales of Sony around consoles drop, it will be due to the early 2000Bleem emulator'stechnical superiority over the PlayStation console, not because Bleem used screen shots to illustrate that comparison. "''</blockquote> The results led caveat was that, had it been possible to modern legal standards regarding emulation as of todayavoid it, Bleem should've done so.  <!--blockquote>''"We are persuaded by the need fact checkfor Bleem to impose minimally upon Sony's copyright with respect to these screen shots because there is no other way to create a truly accurate comparison for the user."''</source--blockquote>

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or just GPL) is one of the most popular open-source licenses in the free software community, and for good reason; it has remained one of the strongest copy-left copyleft licenses, requiring users to share their contributions (some might say to an insane degree). To use GPL code, the safest and easiest way to avoid a license violation is to keep the repository for it out in the open. The lack of any release demonstrates ill will among the many business users of open source software who usually have "playing fair with the community" on the lower end of their priorities. The benefit of having just the repo in the open is that software itself usually has a mechanism to display the software version, and even slight knowledge of repository traversal and compiler tools should allow users to reproduce their own version.

The GPL has two widespread versions; version 2 (written in 1991) and version 3 (written in 2007). No one talks about version 1 (1989). The GPL3 was meant to reconcile license compatibility, address software patents, license violations, nullifying [[wikipedia:Digital_rights_management|DRM]] by calling As it an ineffective technological measure, and the big one; [[wikipedia:Tivoization|Tivoization]], which was a severe flaw they completely missed when drafting is the first two versions that allowed Tivo to make use chief representative of GPL2 software by sharing its code while preventing unsigned firmware from being loaded on the hardware. The GPL3 prohibits thisstrong copyleft licenses, which proved to have major problems when Hyperkin tried to incorporate the GPL3-licensed [[RetroArch]] in GPL carries misconceptions about the [[Retron5]] (among other violations)expectations around its use.

====LGPL and AGPL====* The GPL is not license says nothing about having to make the process of compiling builds easy, only that it has to be ''possible''.* The license that also says nothing against commercial distribution of any kind (as is explained later for non-commercial licenses). If you had to make the Free Software Foundation created; because the GPL2 ended up being overly restrictive in how software source code available, you could work with charge some arbitrary amount for it. Doing that would still be leaps above having nothing to show, many open-source libraries needed a less strict license to allow interoperability with commercial softwarewhich is usually what happens.

This ended up being solved in The GPL has two wayswidespread versions; version 2 (written in 1991) and version 3 (written in 2007). The GPL3 was only written to reconcile issues that had come up with the linking exception found GPL2 in GNU Classpath's GPL2 license allowed the years after it was written, as the Free Software Foundation had a considerable amount of foresight, but not enough to not affect the imagine what would happen if a company used GPL software it would be bundled in, and a product where users could not flash their own firmware. This has become the Lesser GPLcentral point of contention with [[Emulation Boxes]], which is an entire license that was made where hardware designers are constantly at odds with hobbyists who want to make this aspect clearer rather than be an exceptionincrease the functionality of their systems.

====LGPL====The GPL also doesn't account GPL2 was an adequate license for software projects that compiled all of their code into a single binary. However, if the license is used exclusively for consumera <abbr title="Collections of specific routines or functions in a single file to be used by other software instead of being run directly. You may know them on Windows as Dynamic-facing serversLink Libraries, so or DLLs.">code library</abbr> that requires some intermediary application, said app becomes bound to the terms of the Affero GPL . This is a consequence of its broad reach. The FSF's original response was made to require web app developers create a "linking exception" in GNU Classpath's GPL2 license that allowed it to be used in proprietary software without having to share the whole program's source (the lack of said exception would've made it unfeasible to use in Java software). Later on, they created a much clearer variation of this exception as a separate license called the Lesser GPL (LGPL). This means code of their app that bundles and uses an LGPL library only needs to users over keep ''the library itself'' open, not the networkcode that interfaces with it.

The conditions in the BSD license are easy to modify, which makes it an attractive target for those wanting to include the prohibition of commercial use (see [[#Non-commercial licensessoftware]] below). [https://github.com/mamedev/historic-mame/blob/master/docs/license.txt The old MAME license] (and by extension [https://github.com/barry65536/FBAlpha/blob/master/src/license.txt FinalBurn Alpha] and [https://github.com/finalburnneo/FBNeo/blob/master/src/license.txt FinalBurn Neo]) is based off of (or was heavily influenced by) this license, which ended up causing a ton of problems in recent times, notably when a libretro port of MAME tried to backport GPL code into old-licensed code, and when the Capcom Home Arcade [[Emulation Boxes|emulation box]] was said to use FinalBurn Alpha ahead of its release (despite its creators not getting permission from all of FBA's developers).

* It's not as strict as the GPL because it also prohibits doesn't grant trademark use.

===NonSource-commercial licenses=available software==Some ostensibly "free and open-source" software licenses include, or can be modified This is a term typically used to include, an extra provision that's designed refer to prevent the software from being used for any commercial purposes, e.g. the sale of software and/or hardware to turn a profit. Since this is a fairly explicit example of restricting who can use a piece of software and for what purpose, it does technically disqualify the software in question from being considered free and/or open-sourcewhich doesn't strictly count as FLOSS, even if the developer still makes though the source code is readily available to the public.Two of the most common subcategories are:

The Free Software Foundation explains [https://www===Non-commercial software===Some ostensibly "free and open-source" software licenses include, or can be modified to include, an extra provision designed to prevent the software from being used for commercial purposes of a specific nature or of any kind, e.gnug.org/philosophythe sale of software and/free-swor hardware to turn a profit.html#selling here], as part Since this is a fairly explicit example of restricting who can use a piece of their "What is free software" page:<blockquote>and for what purpose, '''Free it disqualifies the software ''can'' be commercialin question from being considered FLOSS''':

<blockquote>''&ldquo;"Free software" does not mean "noncommercial". On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance&mdash;without this, free software could not achieve its aims. [...] We must conclude that a program licensed with such restrictions does not qualify as free software.&rdquo;''<br/>&ndash;[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling The Free Software Foundation]

'''6&ldquo;The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor'&rdquo;''<br/>&ndash;[https://opensource.org/osd Open Source Initiative]</blockquote>

The license must not restrict anyone Despite this, non-commercial licenses have long been seen as a desirable or even essential option by some emulator developers, either to specifically pre-empt others from making bundling their code into a proprietary payware package (even though this would also be a flagrant violation of copyleft licenses like the GPLv3) or using it in a pre-built [[Emulation Boxes|emulation box]] without their explicit permission, or because they simply haven't considered the possibility of any more legitimate commercial use cases for their projects. Or sometimes they do it out of caution that the original hardware manufacturer could take them to court, despite the fact that [[#Legality of emulation|the program manufacturer's only grounds to stand on is whether the underlying technology behind a console is patented]]. 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 field 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 endeavorreal hardware, ''might'' be exceptions to this, but that's where it gets pretty murky from a legal standpoint. For example However, ''developers'' of emulators must take extra precaution when working with code from a non-commercial emulator. As it may is by definition not restrict free software, the code is incompatible with the GPL, and the program 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 being used in 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 businesslicense violation, or from being used for genetic researchas RetroArch is GPL-licensed and makes profit via Patreon.</blockquote>

That being said, some emulator ===Open-core software===Sometimes developers will still see non-commercial licensing as a desirable or even essential option, either choose not to specifically pre-empt others from bundling release the entire source code for their projects, and instead only allow the source code into a payware package to partially be made public. Usually, the core functionality of the program is what gets released under compatible licensing terms (even though this would also be at best, a flagrant violation of most non-copyleft FLOSS licenseslicense) or using it in a prewhile certain bells and whistles remain closed-built [[Emulation Boxes|emulation box]] without their explicit permissionsource, or because they simply havenhence the term "open core". While there't considered s some debate as to whether the possibility stripped-down, fully source-available versions of any more legitimate commercial use cases for their projects. Or sometimes they might just be scared these programs could count as FLOSS, the model as a whole is undoubtedly not fully in keeping with the ideals of the original hardware owners coming after them and they see the nonopen-commercial clause as an easy way to saysource movement, "hey, weand it're not trying s often considered a compromise model that allows outside contributions and/or code reuse while still making it viable to sell the software for profit off of this, please don't sue us".

Whatever reason the dev gives This model is pretty rare for a non-commercial clause emulation software, and not actually that common in the broader software license, it ''should'' be world either; one of no consequence to the average end user who's just running a free emulator on their PC for their own usemost notable examples is [https://about.gitlab. Some specific circumstancescom/ GitLab], such as whose developers offer a developer who's making a brand new commercial game for an old system and using an emulator paid Enterprise Edition with some additional business-focused features compared to test it the freely available core code in lieu of real hardware, ''might'' be exceptions to this, but that's where it admittedly gets pretty murky from a legal standpointthe Community Edition.