On 11-05-16 18:58, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 05/11/2016 08:39 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> "Naturally I imagine that some emulator writers want to charge a
> shareware fee for the code they have
> written and we have absolutely no problem with that as long as they
> aren't, in any sense, charging for the parts of the code that are
> (c)Amstrad and (c) Sinclair."
This very clearly refers to the emulators and _not_ the ROMs.
Hmm, this is almost immediately below:
"Amstrad are happy for emulator writers to include images of our copyrighted code as
long as the (c)opyright messages are not altered"
So I'm pretty sure this applies to the ROMs (such as when e.g.
bundled with an emulator) too.
Note I've no interest in this particular case myself, I've
just been lurking in this thread, and read:
Before your original reply on it, and I was a bit surprised
about your reading of the distribution permission.
Note that the vague term commercial use is not even used.
The phrasing comes down to not being allowed to charge
money for the ROMs as such. Not literary using the
"as such" text, but coming very close to it and IIRC
having a may not charge for ... "as such" clause has
been deemed acceptable in other licenses.