folks thought the same for the Genesis and Atari flashbacks but some tinkering found they were using FOSS emulation. IMO FOSS projects should start charging companies that use their products dependent on scale.
I assume most FOSS emulators have a non-commercial license, so if a company is using it to make money they are already violating the law, but who is gonna go after Nintendo for that?
If they had that, they’d no longer be FOSS and instead “source available” and half the community will raise the pitch forks. Best FOSS licence to protect against this sort of thing is AGPL because it’s toxic for corporations. But even that could be used in this case if they had the source on the same computer imo (IANAL though)
folks thought the same for the Genesis and Atari flashbacks but some tinkering found they were using FOSS emulation. IMO FOSS projects should start charging companies that use their products dependent on scale.
The thing is, we know Nintendo does have in-house developed emulators that they used for Virtual Console and then NSO and the Classic Edition.
It’s fairly likely they didn’t take the effort to port those to PC for the museum, but still.
I assume most FOSS emulators have a non-commercial license, so if a company is using it to make money they are already violating the law, but who is gonna go after Nintendo for that?
I would because it’s an open and shut case no judge would deny.
and you would be incorrect, most GPL/fossy licensing doesn’t specifically prohibit commercial use.
If they had that, they’d no longer be FOSS and instead “source available” and half the community will raise the pitch forks. Best FOSS licence to protect against this sort of thing is AGPL because it’s toxic for corporations. But even that could be used in this case if they had the source on the same computer imo (IANAL though)
Agreed I would totally support emus using a business software license just because of how they’re treated by business.