[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: historical question about fceu in contrib



Evan Prodromou wrote:
> It seems that that's not the case. We actually don't allow packages into
> main if there's not publicly-available, DFSG-free data for them to work
> with. Like, we wouldn't let a new word-processor into main without at
> least one Free document in the word processor's format, and we wouldn't

Sure we would.  Presumably, the word processor can also create and save
documents in its own format, and open those documents later, all without
using any proprietary documents.

> let a new programming-language interpreter into main without at least
> one Free script that uses the language.

This one is more questionable, but presumably the scripting language has
some useful functionality which an end-user can use, such as writing
one-liners or other useful scripts.  I don't think a Free AWK script is
needed in order to ship AWK in main.

I think one key idea is this: just as Free Software requires the right
to make private modifications, a piece of software that can be useful
with privately created data (assuming that it is possible to create such
data) is still acceptable.  For example, most people probably wouldn't
want to share their GnuCash data files, or their certificates for use
with Apache-SSL, and yet both are certainly suitable for main.  For an
emulator-related example, Wine is in main, and it is quite possible to
use MinGW (also in main) to create a Windows application and test it via
Wine; this is certainly not a common occurrance, but it is sufficient.
Furthermore, Wine could also be used to run a private Windows-only
application, such as an old legacy application written by a contractor
back when the business ran Windows.

However, when a program can _only_ be used with particular proprietary
data (meaning "something with this exact interface and functionality",
such as an OS ROM for an emulator), then creating private
implementations of that data is not even a remotely likely use of the
software, and so the software should go to contrib.  For example, while
it is certainly possible for a program that depends on a proprietary
library to be used with a privately-written implementation of that
library, this is highly unlikely and not what any user is likely to do
use the software for.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: