Changes

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).

NonDespite this, non-commercial licenses have long been seen as a desirable or even essential option for by some emulator developers, either to specifically pre-empt others from bundling their code into a proprietary payware package (even though this would also be a flagrant violation of copyleft licenses like the GPL3GPLv3) 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 manufacturers manufacturer could take them to court. This is , despite the fact that [[#Legality of emulation|their the manufacturer's only grounds to stand on is whether the underlying technology behind a console is patented]].

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-sourceto partially be made public. Usually, the core functionality of the program is what becomes sourcegets released under compatible licensing terms (at best, a non-available copyleft FLOSS license) while certain bells and whistles remain proprietaryclosed-source, hence the term "open core". One notable example While there's some debate as to whether the stripped-down, fully source-available versions of this these programs could count as FLOSS, the model as a whole is seen undoubtedly not fully in keeping with the GitLab projectideals of the open-source movement, where GitLab offers and it's often considered a paid Enterprise Edition with certain extra features compared compromise model that allows outside contributions and/or code reuse while still making it viable to sell the freely available core code in the Community Editionsoftware for profit.

While there's some debate as to whether the stripped-down, fully source-available versions of these programs could count as FLOSS, the This model as a whole is undoubtedly pretty rare for emulation software, and not fully actually that common in keeping with the ideals broader software world either; one of the open-source movementmost notable examples is [https://about.gitlab.com/ GitLab], and it's generally considered whose developers offer a compromise between wanting paid Enterprise Edition with some additional business-focused features compared to sell the software and wanting to allow outside contribution and/or freely available core code reusein the Community Edition.