Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient
to render MP3 players
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can
be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a
package. Maybe
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:24:12PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
The litmus test here is a significant amount of functionality, not
will refuse to work at all without it, although that's a fairly good
description of a
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:08:06AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I think every program in Debian is held to the standard of being useful.
Please, s/is held/should be held/.
If you're like me, you should fear the counterexamples that could be
brought to the fore.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone packaged
any of the free IWADs?
I really don't know.
Perhaps no DD has enough time to package two files
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:24:14 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
It seems like this belongs in main. But why hasn't anyone
packaged any of the free IWADs?
I really
* Josh Triplett:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
render MP3 players useful with no non-free
Josh Triplett wrote:
In this situation, either MP3 decoders should be removed, or if not,
then MP3 *en*coders should be packaged as well, since there does not
appear to be any distinction between the two except for the amount of
the royalties.
There has been active enforcement against mp3
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't
packaged), the only thing it will do is display an error message that no
ROM was found.
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
snip
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed
one format of images, and there were no images out there in that
format, would you want to see that in Debian? What if there were
images
Lewis Jardine wrote:
snip
Emulators work perfectly correctly without software to emulate. NO$GMB
does the same thing with no image loaded that my gameboy does with no
cartridge in the slot.
It has 'no significant functionality'.
Pacifist (I assume) does the same thing with no
BIOS that a
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
data is
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
packaging in main of appropriate content.
The Debian Policy says something pretty close to that, in my view.
2.2.1 The main section
Every package in
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:22:36AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
Do we expect the typical user of the emulator to already have game
ROMs on hand? If so, by what means?
Do you really want to know and control the means, by which
debian users will
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you can make your
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:05:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
packaging in main of appropriate content.
The Debian Policy says something pretty
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:46:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
render MP3 players useful with no non-free
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:56:45 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Why should Debian wait for one such image to *be packaged* before
moving the viewer from contrib to main?
Oh, it doesn't need to be packaged. If it is, however, it proves that
such an image exists.
I'm glad to hear this: at least
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:46:08 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite
sufficient to render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you
can make your own MP3s.
Out of curiosity, is that different from the status of MPEG videos?
That is:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
The litmus test here is a significant amount of functionality, not
will refuse to work at all without it, although that's a fairly good
description of a console without a ROM.
Would one ROM cut it, then?
Yes, in a word!
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Does Debian main contain any MP3s? If not, would you like to see MP3
players removed from Debian main?
Debian main does contain MP3 recorders. I think that is quite sufficient to
render MP3 players useful with no non-free software; you can
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
Lack of free data sets
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 01:53:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data sets in the
* Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040710 03:49]:
The typical user of such an emulator is developing software, and using
the emulator to test it (in which case visualboy advance is no different
to SPIM or WINE).
In my opinion, Debian contains sufficient tools to develop your own
programs
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should be allowed into main without
us trying to pretend that it's only there for
* Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040710 14:27]:
I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
packaging in main of appropriate content. That would be a waste of archive
resources.
The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should be
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments were so constrained that ROM-based service
routines were very heavily used.
That's interesting and true. But a lot is not all. I think in the
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:03:46PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040710 14:27]:
I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the
packaging in main of appropriate content. That would be a waste of archive
resources.
The
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 08:19:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Certainly. But in no way should we be encouraging the fallacy that there
*must* be packaged free content before we will accept a consumer of said
content into the archive.
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 06:49:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 08:19:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Certainly. But in no way should we be encouraging the fallacy that there
*must* be packaged free content before we will accept a consumer of said
content into the
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The quake2 and lxdoom packages are in contrib, due to lack of free data
sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data sets in the archive?
I think if there was a
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:16:42PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:10:59PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
that will load and display an insert ROM image (eg. NES, SNES), and
one that
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:16:42PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
that will load and display an insert ROM image (eg. NES, SNES), and
one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do
Branden Robinson wrote:
I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator
that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free
software to run.
A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the
ROM, because the environments
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 06:47:53PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 18:17, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally
commercial, non-free (and
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:50:53AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
important) somewhere disagrees, or it wouldn't have happened in the first
place. I myself don't really give a rip either way where the emulators end
up, I'm
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they don't
*depend* on non-free packages. Usefulness is, IMHO, a completely
different matter.
I don't think we should be putting useless software in our archive, let
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:03:29PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Lastly, I guess there's just something really violating about thinking
that Debian is judging the data I have, or could have, on my hard drive.
So I'm not working with Free data. So what? Mind your own beeswax,
Debian.
If you
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:02:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:22:12 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
Nintendo are the only ones I'm aware of that try to pretend console
emulators aren't legal (sheer sophistry though; they claim outright
this thing is illegal because
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged),
the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was
found.
My thinking is that we need
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:22:09PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the
TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged),
the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 06:05:24 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
don't*depend* on non-free packages. Usefulness is, IMHO, a
completely different matter.
I don't
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator
that will load and display an insert ROM image (eg. NES, SNES), and
one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do
anything at all (eg. PSX BIOS
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:27:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 06:05:24 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
don't*depend* on non-free packages.
On Jun 29, 2004, at 18:22, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Sony have given a stream of conflicting messages about the playstation
platforms.
More importantly, when they tried it against Connectix(sp?), they lost.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:22:12 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
Nintendo are the only ones I'm aware of that try to pretend console
emulators aren't legal (sheer sophistry though; they claim outright
this thing is illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes).
This is what I call the
On Jun 20, 2004, at 19:50, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed
one
format of images, and there were no images out there in that format,
would you
want to see that in Debian?
Well, it's hard to see there being an image viewer which
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
OK, you *are* making that argument. Why, then, should mpg321 stay in
main? Honestly, how many people play DFSG-free mp3s?
More than 1.
--
Raul
@ 27/06/2004 22:12 : wrote Anthony DeRobertis :
Is it illegal if I own a game cartridge, and dump it? That part
probably isn't; US copyright law, at least, give me permission to
make a backup copy.
Under BR computer programs act (9.609/98), one backup copies and
*all* copies deemed
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
That second case is pretty much where we stand with a *lot* of game
console
emulators out there -- the only way to get data to use with them is to
break
the law. Wonderful.
Is it illegal if I own a game cartridge, and
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
That second case is pretty much where we stand with a *lot* of
game console emulators out there -- the only way to get data to
use with them is to break the law. Wonderful.
Is it illegal if I own a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:12:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
That second case is pretty much where we stand with a *lot* of
game console emulators out there -- the only way to get data to
use
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Every package must specify the dependency information about other
packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
Emulators do not work correctly without software to emulate.
If there is no software, then by
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with,
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Every package must specify the dependency information about other
packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
Emulators do not work correctly without software to emulate.
If there is no software, then by definition the emulator works
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:55:25 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
Well, I thought that useless software is maybe not worth to
distribute at all. You seem to imply that a free, but useless
package must be placed in contrib rather than in main...
I implied nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry if I
On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 19:55, Matthew Palmer wrote:
To re-quote policy, The Depends field should be used if
the depended-on package is required for the depending package to provide a
significant amount of functionality. Usefulness is a function of
functionality. No functionality, no utility
Evan Prodromou wrote:
In closing: I think it's a mistake to leave out Free Software just
because there's not Free Data for that software to work with.
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free
libs, looks like it doesn't require any non-free stuff at
all. There's also free (as in freedom) roms for GBA in the
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that
data is required
Josh Triplett wrote:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package
Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe
that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with,
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:50:35 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they
don't*depend* on non-free packages.
Usefulness is, IMHO, a completely different matter.
Because, of
Evan Prodromou wrote:
I think that it's a mistake to say that an interpreter or emulator
depends on the data blobs it interprets, in the Debian sense of
dependence.
That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
important) somewhere disagrees, or it wouldn't have
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:47:53 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is
generally commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably
illegal) software in order to run, which
On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 11:50, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I think that it's a mistake to say that an interpreter or emulator
depends on the data blobs it interprets, in the Debian sense of
dependence.
That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
important) somewhere
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they don't
*depend* on non-free packages.
Usefulness is, IMHO, a completely different matter.
Because, of course, more useless software in main is exactly what we want.
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed one
format of images, and there were no images out there in that format, would you
want to see that in Debian? What if there were images in that format, but
in order to get them you'd have to break
J.B. Nicholson-Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The litmus test here is a significant amount of functionality, not
will refuse to work at all without it, although that's a fairly
good description of a console without a ROM.
Would one ROM cut it, then? I am working to determine if one ROM is
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Would one ROM cut it, then? I am working to determine if one ROM is
available under a DFSG-free license right now. I don't have much to
report yet except thanks to those who have supplied information to help
me track down the copyright holder. I should know
Hello.
Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
looks like it doesn't require any non-free stuff at all. There's also
free (as in freedom) roms for GBA in the net. So what's the problem?
PS BTW,
Dan Korostelev wrote:
Hello.
Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
looks like it doesn't require any non-free stuff at all. There's also
free (as in freedom) roms for GBA in the net. So what's
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 15:09 -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
The same reason fceu was in contrib until 'efp' was packaged, because
the requires at least
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 17:09, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in
'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free libs,
looks like it doesn't require any non-free stuff at all. There's also
free (as in freedom) roms
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 17:40 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
That doesn't make sense to me. An image viewer isn't useful without
images, an interpreter isn't useful without scripts, nor is a library
useful without some program that links to it.
But we don't keep those kinds of packages out of
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 18:17, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally
commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably illegal) software in
order to run, which is
Evan Prodromou wrote:
I guess I'm just not sure I buy that an emulator is materially different
from a script interpreter, DFSG-wise.
Ok, tack on 'console', and the fact that 99.9% of console 'programs' (ROMs)
out there are extremely undistributable, as opposed to something like a
Macintosh
86 matches
Mail list logo
