Re: Policy change on emulators

Hi, On 11-05-16 18:58, Tom Callaway wrote: On 05/11/2016 08:39 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: "Naturally I imagine that some emulator writers want to charge a shareware fee for the code they have written and we have absolutely no problem with that as long as they aren't, in any sense, charging for

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/11/2016 08:39 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > "Naturally I imagine that some emulator writers want to charge a > shareware fee for the code they have > written and we have absolutely no problem with that as long as they > aren't, in any sense, charging for the parts of the code that are >

Re: Policy change on emulators

Hi, On 09-05-16 17:32, Tom Callaway wrote: On 05/06/2016 05:30 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Tom Callaway > wrote: On 05/04/2016 05:20 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > Does this mean that most console

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/05/2016 02:29 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2016-05-05 10:59, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> I would think that it requiring S3TC would be more of a blocker. But >> then again, maybe it's possible for someone to cook up their own game >> content that doesn't use compressed textures, but

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/06/2016 05:30 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Tom Callaway > wrote: > > On 05/04/2016 05:20 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > Does this mean that most console emulators (i.e. > >

Re: Policy change on emulators

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 05/04/2016 05:20 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > Does this mean that most console emulators (i.e. > > NES/SNES/MasterSystem/Genesis emulators) are now acceptable in Fedora? > > Subject to the guidelines as written,

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 2016-05-05 10:59, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: I would think that it requiring S3TC would be more of a blocker. But then again, maybe it's possible for someone to cook up their own game content that doesn't use compressed textures, but I don't see that as being particularly useful. Is S2TC

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Policy change on emulators

> "TC" == Tom Callaway writes: TC> That's a very strange situation, but I don't think it would affect TC> inclusion of openmw in Fedora. I would think that it requiring S3TC would be more of a blocker. But then again, maybe it's possible for someone to cook up their

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/05/2016 08:07 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> >>> There also seems to be an agreement not to build the software on some >>> platforms in place, that isn't reflected in the license, but might >>> attract a lawsuit if someone did. >> >> This is particularly concerning. I'd like to better

Re: Policy change on emulators

There also seems to be an agreement not to build the software on some platforms in place, that isn't reflected in the license, but might attract a lawsuit if someone did. This is particularly concerning. I'd like to better understand that situation before giving openmw the all-clear. Unless

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/04/2016 08:39 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: >> On 05/04/2016 04:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> What about things like openmw that in theory can be run with free >>> assests, but for which there really isn't anything

Re: Policy change on emulators

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 05/04/2016 04:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> What about things like openmw that in theory can be run with free >> assests, but for which there really isn't anything beyond a demo for >> other than the assests from a

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/04/2016 04:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > What about things like openmw that in theory can be run with free > assests, but for which there really isn't anything beyond a demo for > other than the assests from a proprietary game? The assets should not be a problem unless they're tied

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/04/2016 05:20 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > Does this mean that most console emulators (i.e. > NES/SNES/MasterSystem/Genesis emulators) are now acceptable in Fedora? Subject to the guidelines as written, yes. A clear example of something that would now be permitted would be MAME (because

Re: Policy change on emulators

What about things like openmw that in theory can be run with free assests, but for which there really isn't anything beyond a demo for other than the assests from a proprietary game? There also seems to be an agreement not to build the software on some platforms in place, that isn't reflected

Re: Open Watcom was Re: Policy change on emulators

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >> They say their reference C compiler is the Open Watcom C, which seems >> to be distributed under this license: >> ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org/pub/license.txt . The license

Open Watcom was Re: Policy change on emulators

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > They say their reference C compiler is the Open Watcom C, which seems > to be distributed under this license: > ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org/pub/license.txt . The license seems complicated > and probably non-free in Fedora terms. There is a Debian thread

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/04/2016 05:20 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Tom Callaway > wrote: > > Some emulators (applications which emulate another platform) are not > permitted for inclusion in Fedora. These rules will

Re: Policy change on emulators

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > Some emulators (applications which emulate another platform) are not > permitted for inclusion in Fedora. These rules will help you determine > whether an emulator is acceptable for Fedora. > > * Emulators which depend on

Re: Policy change on emulators

On May 3, 2016 8:01 PM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > >> Are the FreeDOS sources under a Fedora-acceptable license? > > > > Probably

Re: Policy change on emulators

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> Are the FreeDOS sources under a Fedora-acceptable license? > > Probably needs review. It's mostly GPLv2, but some of the included > software has

Re: Policy change on emulators

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > Are the FreeDOS sources under a Fedora-acceptable license? Probably needs review. It's mostly GPLv2, but some of the included software has various other licenses. See . I'm looking with the

Re: Policy change on emulators

On Tuesday, 03 May 2016 at 21:23, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 05/03/2016 03:14 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > Does this mean that, if we strip FreeDOS out of dosemu / dosemu2, we can > > ship it and even point to a website with FreeDOS binaries? > > > > AIUI the only problem with FreeDOS is that

Re: Policy change on emulators

On 05/03/2016 03:14 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > Does this mean that, if we strip FreeDOS out of dosemu / dosemu2, we can > ship it and even point to a website with FreeDOS binaries? > > AIUI the only problem with FreeDOS is that no one knows how to compile > it with a free software toolchain.

Re: Policy change on emulators

On May 3, 2016 12:07 PM, "Tom Callaway" wrote: > > * Emulators which depend on firmware or ROM files to function may not be > included in Fedora, unless the copyright holder(s) for the firmware/ROM > files give clear permission for the firmware/ROM files to be distributed >

Policy change on emulators

To the Fedora Community, The Fedora policy on emulators has been in place for quite some time, it is one of the first legal rules we put in place. Recently, we reconsidered that rule and have amended our position (with discussion from Red Hat Legal). Previously, the guidelines forbid the