On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:58:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
Of course, releasing the source is an essential step of making
something free.
When I wrote to r[e]license it under a GPL-compatible license (and
put a typo in it... :p ) I meant implicitly that source code should
be provided
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
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 why they fall into contrib.
I
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:30:48 -0500
J.B. Nicholson-Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone reading this post knows Paul Lay or Harvey Kong Tin
(Rockfall's co-authors), please feel free to have them e-mail me.
If you haven't already come across it,
http://members.tripod.com/~plain2/ looks like
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
