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 the > > > 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[1], and the commonly used FreeMiNT > > kernel is apparently a mix of GPL and BSD[2], and most anything open > > source has been ported, and even packaged into RPMs[3], seems to me any > > Atari ST series emulator should be okay in Extras. ARAnyM can even run > > Linux/68k[4]. > > > > 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: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceRequirement and also is not covered by http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware These ROMs aren't a linux system's firmware, these are a foreign system's firmware, to be interpreted by an interpreter (emulator). Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
