Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 466658
Review Request: VisualBoyAdvance - Nintendo Gameboy (,Advance,Color) Emulator
Last modified: 2008-11-19 11:18:35 EST
Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/VisualBoyAdvance.spec
SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/VisualBoyAdvance-1.7.2-1.fc9.src.rpm
VisualBoyAdvance is a Nintendo (TM) Gameboy and GameboyAdvance emulator
with debugging capabilities.
Oops, doesn't build in koji , but rpmlint is silent. The configure script doesn't recognize ppc64-redhat?
Are you sure this software won't be against Fedora's emulator policy?
Also, from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games :
But generally, if it requires ROM files, image files, or a copy of
the machines BIOS/firmware to work, we won't package it.
It seems more like something that belongs in the RPMFusion project at
rpmfusion.org (where I think gnuboy is already packaged).
(In reply to comment #2)
> Are you sure this software won't be against Fedora's emulator policy?
> Also, from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games :
> But generally, if it requires ROM files, image files, or a copy of
> the machines BIOS/firmware to work, we won't package it.
Well, that's why I submitted it, I want to find out if it is acceptable in Fedora (RPMFusion does not allow packages which could be included in Fedora). Could this not be used to run homebrew (and thus not patented nor copyrighted) games etc?
Best to ask the lawyers, I suppose.
But you did not answer the question of whether it requires ROM images or a copy of any legally protected firmware in order to run. Answer that and there may be no point in asking for a legal opinion.
Also, and I hate to be an ass about this, but there are really better ways to go about this than submitting something you know to be questionable to an already overloaded review queue so that one of the already overloaded package reviewers can come through and to the legwork. Was a simple post to fedora-legal-list not sufficient to answer your questions about this package?
Last time I sent an email to fedora-legal-list they never got it. I had to forward it to spot directly to get an answer (I'm not subscribed to the list). It's easy to *not* review this if you think it's too questionable.
I'm passing this on to the lawyers.
I had just a quick look at the spec file.
It seems some things are missing. For example there is no GTK+ GUI and no i18n support.
You may also want to read this thread where there is another spec file for Fedora:
Andrea: I'm waiting on reply from spot before I work on this too much. If the lawyers say no, I'll continue the review request at RPM Fusion.
Red Hat legal gave this a lot of thought, but in the end, they decided this one was too risky.
Thanks for considering it.