On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 02:02:33AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hello Paul, Yo! > > thanks for reviewing fs-uae again! My pleasure :) > It's a pity it got rejected again since we are desperately waiting > for fs-uae to be in the archives so we can finally get rid of both > "uae" and "e-uae" which have been abandoned both in Debian as well > upstream. Indeed > As for your complaints, I understand that we always want to have > 100%-DFSG-compliant packages in Debian. However, I'm afraid, > that's not always possible. Uh.... main is 100% DFSG free. If it's not, let me know so I can file a RM bug. If it's not DFSG free, we have non-free > For fs-uae, which is a fork of uae, this holds true because the > source has been modified by dozens of developers and has been > forked several times since uae was initially released. There > are so many contributions that it is sometimes not feasible to > get the proper source or figure out who holds the copyright. Copyright isn't the issue. I'm not even complaning about copyright, just license compliance / distributability > I fully agree that this is not the optimal situation, but sometimes > we should find a compromise when the last percent to get the > 100% compliance are nearly impossible to get. I disagree we should not comply with the terms of the license to the letter. In some cases, we allow cheating (prebuilt images) if we can ensure the source (and tools to build it) are intact and all freely licensed and it's a big contraint on buildds. > Interestingly, the file "filesys_bootrom.cpp" is already part > both of "uae" and "e-uae" which are currently both in the > Debian archive. It's part of the uae sources and subject > to it's copyright. We should remove it if it's nonfree. What are it's contents? Are they free? What files are there? What licenses are they under (you see my questions) > Both filesys_bootrom.cpp and core.cw4.cpp (a firmware to > support the Catweasel controller by Individual Computers) > are native m68k code. Sure; so are ELF binaries. What were they built from? I don't think they were building that char by hand, where's the ASM (or C)? > There isn't much point in providing > the source code for these, I'd assume they have been > written in m68k assembler. We should have the ASM, since that's the prefered form of modification > As for the "sinctable.cpp" file, I'm not sure exactly what it does, > but is it really necessary to have the Python script available? Yes. If i wanted to modify it, I wouldn't have the prefered form (e.g. the python script that generated this table). > I'll ask upstream. Thank you! > In any case, > > *sigh* > > Adrian Thanks for doing your part to keep Debian 100% DFSG free, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature