Main > Main Forum
A word about LEDBlinky…
Bender:
--- Quote from: Vanguard on May 03, 2010, 12:35:19 pm ---My point is that if MAME is free, people shouldn't expect to get paid for writing software for MAME.
I do think people should get paid for writing software. However, if you're doing it to support a community that is strongly grounded in not charging for the work, it seems wrong to try to charge. Especially when your work relies on people who have volunteered their work freely.
If MAME ever decides to start charging (which I think they should), then the rest of the community should feel free to as well.
--- End quote ---
Ok, I think I see the misunderstanding here
This software is for a cab, you don't even need Mame to use it, a lot of people use it for jukeboxes
Are people building and giving cab's away free?
Do you get joysticks, monitors and buttons for free?
That's all built around the use of Mame right?
Plus there is a free version
--- Quote from: Vanguard on May 03, 2010, 12:36:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: Bender on May 03, 2010, 12:33:37 pm ---More vendors are asking for support.
--- End quote ---
Then the vendors should pay.
--- End quote ---
Can't argue that
Vanguard:
Hardware is a gray area. People are getting a tangible product with real cost when they buy it. It's hard to argue things like this should be free. The hardware also doesn't exist solely for MAME. It has many uses. The perfect model would be that the hardware vendors making the money would pay software developers to support their hardware.
Frankly, trying to charge the end user is going to be difficult. It's so easy these days to find almost any piece of software that has any nag screen or activation key disabled. You'll get a tiny minority of people who will actually pay.
CheffoJeffo:
I've got to +1 Bender on this.
While many/most folks may think that this place is about MAME and that is all that folks here are concerned about, that isn't necessarily so. I don't use LEDBlinky and don't expect that I ever will.
If, however, it adds value to a project that I have, then I have no problem paying for it, even if the project itself is based on free software (or even software that I have already paid for) and the illegal use of somebody else's IP.
Vanguard's logic is the same logic that has been used to justify the pirating of D2K ("based on somebody else's work, which I already pirate!"). It also flies in the face of most of the multi-game projects for "real" arcade games.
Bottom line is ... if you want people to do cool things for you, you should to be willing to pay ... even if they aren't willing to charge.
EDIT: FWIW, I think that Vanguard would agree with my closing statement because, as he says, people should get paid. We just draw the line in different places -- I draw the line at "people who do cool stuff and want to get paid" and he draws the line based on "people downstream not getting paid".
Vanguard:
I just see it as being almost parallel with someone taking MAME, throwing some features into it, calling it PowerMAME and then asking to get paid.
But yeah, I guess I'm not really thinking about the non MAME uses. That never really occurred to me.
I don't know the D2k story. How is my belief that people shouldn't charge for work that builds on someones free work justifying the stealing of D2k's work?
Vanguard:
--- Quote from: CheffoJeffo on May 03, 2010, 12:50:59 pm ---EDIT: FWIW, I think that Vanguard would agree with my closing statement because, as he says, people should get paid. We just draw the line in different places -- I draw the line at "people who do cool stuff and want to get paid" and he draws the line based on "people downstream not getting paid".
--- End quote ---
I don't think the people downstream shouldn't get paid. I just don't think the people downstream should be getting paid when the people upstream aren't.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version