On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2009-02-08 at 2:06:33 -0500, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I will admit I'm now baffled by spot's position expressed in the BZ. >> If it is code, and I don't see why it is any different than cowsay >> without a free perl in that respect, then it should be rejected for >> the reasons spot gave here. > > Well, OVM doesn't execute. It doesn't need to be compiled into anything. > It's really content. Ok, I guess OVM being characterized as source code and a class library (and it looks like it is exactly that) and the thing FESCo requested to be added calling itself a compiler and simulator made me think it was code that needed to be compiled. But we aren't using the code -> compile -> execute model in this area. So maybe it is code but it isn't executable code and thus falls into content. So OVM might be closer to just an rpm containing a library of cow files in the absence of the program cowsay needed to interpret/manipulate/display them?! The cow library can be thought of as source code but it never becomes executable, it is just a language only cowsay with as assist from perl understands how to use. > Think of it as a .png file. It's obviously content, because it doesn't > execute, nor does it need to be compiled into anything, but for it to be > used, something has to be able to parse the PNG format. > > We judge content on whether it enhances the user experience. I'd argue > that the OVM content does enhance the experience for an Electronics Lab > User, but FESCo disagrees. That's why they get to make the ultimate call. :) Thanks again spot for helping me sort this out. While I think I understand the distinctions being made here perhaps we should stop. :) John _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
