On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 10:08 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 05:32 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:52 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > What I was trying to say with the above message is that if someone else
> > is willing to have the discussion for a package here and if the outcome
> > is that the package is ok for Extras then I'm more then happy to move it
> > to Extras including putting it through review (again as all packages in
> > dribble are already reviewed).
> I'll do it! (I used various Atari STs from 1987 to 1997...)
> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 12:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > I believe the rule of thumb here is that if we have freely
> > redistributable "data" that runs on these emulators, we can include
> > emulator in extras. In other words, the question to ask yourself, is
> > there any legal and Free software uses for the emulators?
> Since there's GPL ROMs available, and the commonly used FreeMiNT
> kernel is apparently a mix of GPL and BSD, and most anything open
> source has been ported, and even packaged into RPMs, seems to me any
> Atari ST series emulator should be okay in Extras. ARAnyM can even run
> Anyone disagree? Do we need a FESCo blessing?
No disagreement here. This is fine for Fedora.
Well, though I agree to you, I think
you are about to construct a
precedence, which longs for an explanation, which probably should be
reflected to the package guidelines:
This case clearly violates:
and also is not covered by
These ROMs aren't a linux system's firmware, these are a foreign
system's firmware, to be interpreted by an interpreter (emulator).