Split releases: min/full, GPL/permissive

The criteria:

  • If we offer a slimmed-down package with only 1 core for each of the 5 or 6 most popular systems, that will need to have a separate name from the main package. (See also #106 which would allow in-place upgrades.)
  • If we offer a permissively-licensed package (necessarily smaller), that will need to have a separate name from the main package, (which must be GPL, see #61).
  • There is a future where both happen, so ideally we'd be able to continue using one or both of the names when introducing the new package(s).
    • Also we can continue using the unsuffixed package name, at least while we have 2 packages, which is important because people (like me) might be scripting the downloads.

Proposal A: BizHawk and BizHawk-free

  • ❌ Doesn't work in slim/full case
  • ❌ Doesn't work in MIT/GPL case, as it implies that the unlabeled version isn't gratis, plus I'm thinking the unlabelled version would be the GPL one, despite that being the more free one in real terms

Proposal B: BizHawk and BizHawk-full

  • ✔️ Works in slim/full case
    • ❌ Can be extended to slim/MIT/full case by renaming BizHawk to BizHawk-min and adding BizHawk, which is not ideal
  • ✔️ Works in MIT/GPL case
    • ✔️ Can be extended to slim/MIT/full case by adding BizHawk-min

Proposal C: BizHawk and BizHawk-min

  • ✔️ Works in slim/full case
    • ✔️ Can be extended to slim/MIT/full case by adding something else, not sure what it would be, or alternatively by renaming BizHawk to BizHawk-full and adding BizHawk
  • ❌ Sort of works in MIT/GPL case, but it would be a bit misleading
Edited by YoshiRulz