On 4/1/16, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > alírio eyng <alirioe...@gmail.com> writes: >> Isaac David: >>> However in the last few days I have >>>seen many arguments showing there are yet more valid uses I hadn't >>>imagined, like learning from the source code and testing portability >>>without leaving your comfy libre OS. >> source code is out of question for a distro, unless you want to >> compile and execute it (or just have a package that copy the source >> code); but developing without a game is like developing without a test >> suite... > I don’t understand this. I regularly look at the sources of programmes > I find interesting. how do you find it interesting without executing it?
> You don’t have to compile and execute it to find source code useful. agreed; but as i argued, if you never will execute, just have a package that copy the source code or not include in the distro > You don’t > have to hack on the emulator, but you can hack on an existing free game > or write your own. agreed a free game would be allowed by conservative approach as i described a free game would only be disallowed by extremely conservative approach as i described, that i reject >> expecting the user to evaluate if some game is free is making it >> unnecessarily difficult to remain in freedom >> making game packages/executables and not emulator packages/executables >> would allow all know good uses and still signal the user to be >> cautious with other games > > This limits the use of the emulator. You seem to think that an emulator > is only useful as a runtime dependency for a game, but I and others in > this thread disagree. i want to allow all good uses, they all can have exceptions i believe the best way to _actively protect_ freedom is with a policy with some compromise, this don't mean the exceptions justify changing the rule you seem to think i'm defending extremely conservative, that i reject most people in this thread seem only choosing between extremely conservative or extremely liberal, i reject extremely conservative; so i also would prefer extremely liberal, if that was a binary choice; i'm arguing it isn't i believe the _main_ use of a emulator is as a runtime dependency for a game, and we should apply the same reasoning behind ndiswrapper "with one exception, all ndis drivers are nonfree--and the one free one is a windows port of a native linux driver. so right now, this isn't useful for anything besides using nonfree software"[1] obviously i can say i want to look at ndiswrapper source code, and this should be allowed but this don't justify including ndiswrapper executable in a free distro [1]https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines