[Dev] [GNU-linux-libre] MAME
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
GNUtoo at no-log.org
Sat Apr 2 02:51:20 GMT 2016
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:09:08 -0400
Luke <g4jc at openmailbox.org> wrote:
> I'd like to weigh in by mentioning there are still many uses for
> emulators which people think should be removed.
> For example, there are still GPL Windows programs that ONLY work on
> Windows. There is no reason WINE would need to be removed if the
> purpose is to learn how to make fully free Windows programs. These
> programs can one day run on a free OS, such as ReactOS.
The same comment than before also applies to wine,
let's document at least one free software that can be built and run
100% free with wine.
> The same goes for DosBox and FreeDOS where there is still a small
> community learning and improving DOS using fully free software.
> It is actually more ethical and generally more quality to play older
> games you own on a fully free emulator than it is your own console
> which does not contain a fully free distro. In the case of PSP and
> PSX, it is now possible to play the games fully free without a
> non-free bios.
It is also probably more ethical to run a non-free operating system to
play games on it than it is to uses devices that are locked down so
badly that, in order to run free software on it, you would need to
break its security, and in some jurisdictions, probably the law too.
However that doesn't make running a non-free operating system ethical.
> Regarding Gnash, yes, there are fully free Flash authoring tools and
> projects too:
> Before we start removing access to free software, we should consider
> the unintended consequences.
We'd rather document how to run 100% free software on virtual machines.
> - The GNU/Linux kernel hacker never tried to running GNU/Linux on the
> PS2, because he didn't have access to a fully free emulator to do his
This is a good point, however I find it easier just to document how to
run 100% free software.
> In each scenario, it is the user that uses a tool for good or evil. We
> should not be thought police on how they intend or do not intend to
> use their software by removing access to the tools. I do agree that
> there should be a warning that these programs may offer access to
> non-free software, but it is up to the user on how they intend to act
> on that statement.
No need to warn, just document how to compile and run 100% free
That practically speaking will change the goal of such program.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Dev