Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > it is clear that the use of such emulators is primarily for use > with non-free ROMs [with] few exceptions By that logic, the use of media player software is primarily for use with non-free music, which outnumbers music distributed under a license for free cultural works. And the primary purpose for a PDF viewer is for viewing non-free documents, which outnumber documents distributed under a license for free cultural works. If the issue is with the fact that only 27 games work, I can dig up more exceptions. For example, an NES emulator is useful to run software produced for the PlayPower project: <http://playpower.org/> > it is not worth the likely risk of lawsuit to include > "Nintendo" emulators On what grounds would NOA sue Red Hat? As for patent infringement, the patents on the NES expired half a decade ago. As for contributory copyright infringement, as I understand it, an emulator packaged with one or more free games appears to "be capable of substantial noninfringing uses", as the U.S. Supreme Court put it in Sony v. Universal. Another popular GNU/Linux distribution demonstrates this noninfringing use by packaging a free NES game; is it in trouble as well? <https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+package/efp> To put it another way, what's the specific legal difference between FCEUX and DOSBox? <http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=174907> Once we characterize this difference, can someone update the Licensing/SoftwareTypes page to mention emulators that will not be packaged despite the availability of free software for the emulated platform? -- Damian Yerrick _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
