Hello,
as this discussion has come to a standstill, could we please restart this to
get some results
and some decisions? This is going on for some months, back and forth and seems
we
have come nowhere.
Or has there already been some progress, which i have overseen, besides this:
on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:05
in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
[snip]
We have a different perception of
laws, so it seems.
Very likely you are subject to different laws.
They vary a lot from place to place.
: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
non-free+tainted RPMs?
Message-ID:
CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit :
2011/7/9
-
odjjhxpcy38dnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
non-free+tainted RPMs?
Message-ID:
CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com
To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org
Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
non-free+tainted RPMs
] Repository question: where do we put
non-free+tainted RPMs?
Message-ID:
CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit :
2011/7/9
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk:
This thread has
On 12.07.2011 04:42, andre999 wrote:
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just
released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here:
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce:
http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ).
Romain
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com
To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org
Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
non-free+tainted RPMs?
Message-ID:
CA
2011/7/12 Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. ewil...@bex.net:
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com
To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org
Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
non-free+tainted RPMs?
Message
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/12 andre999and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
be approached by the patent holder.
(If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
And if that means that our constrained (tainted) repos are almost empty,
wouldn't that simplify
On mardi 12 juillet 2011 at 22:48, andre999 wrote :
I noticed that all packages in tainted contain .tainted. in the name.
rsync permits adding the option
--exclude '.tainted.'
to permit excluding such packages if a mirror wants to.
You should not do that, because you will end up with a broken
andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48:
So we could eliminate the tainted repos, to facilitate putting packages in
core or non-free as appropriate.
There may have to be a few adjustments to show (or not) the packages tagged
tainted, but that shouldn't be difficult.
Wouldn't that be easier ?
(At the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 23:08, Balcaen John mik...@mageia.org wrote:
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote:
[...]
For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
be approached by the patent holder.
(If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
I hope
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Backlund t...@mageia.org wrote:
andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48:
So we could eliminate the tainted repos, to facilitate putting packages
in
core or non-free as appropriate.
There may have to be a few adjustments to show (or not) the packages
tagged
So there seems to be a wish for an other answer to this request :
https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1730
Faac (and rpms built with it ) might appear at least in tainted repo ?
same as they are in plf ... or in Debian squeeze multimedia repo, or in
ATrpms repo for Fedora 15
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 23:08, Balcaen Johnmik...@mageia.org wrote:
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote:
[...]
For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
be approached by the patent holder.
(If not ourselves, then some
On 12 July 2011 23:14, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+mag...@gmail.com wrote:
On mardi 12 juillet 2011 at 22:48, andre999 wrote :
I noticed that all packages in tainted contain .tainted. in the name.
rsync permits adding the option
--exclude '.tainted.'
to permit excluding such packages if a mirror
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk:
This thread has strayed far from the original question,
Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just
released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here:
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce:
http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ).
Romain
2011/7/9 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled
in a single tainted repository?
Given Mageia's commitment to the promotion of free software, I believe
that they should not. If Mageia
2011/7/8 James Kerr j...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled in a
single tainted repository?
How can tainted software be free software at the
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil tv...@gmx.de:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in
tainted. A free software can not have a
2011/7/7 nicolas vigier bo...@mars-attacks.org:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/7 nicolas vigierbo...@mars-attacks.org:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free. If a non-free software
2011/7/8 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/7 nicolas vigierbo...@mars-attacks.org:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 andre999and...@laposte.net:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/7 nicolas vigierbo...@mars-attacks.org:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways.
Am 17.03.2011 09:14, schrieb Samuel Verschelde:
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
but
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
licensing) will go into tainted.
That's all. Clear and simple.
The
Am 06.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
licensing) will go
On 6 July 2011 13:40, Florian Hubold doktor5...@arcor.de wrote:
Am 06.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into
Am 06.07.2011 14:04, schrieb Ahmad Samir:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornathmolc...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages
On 06/07/11 12:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornathmolc...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011, Thorsten van Lil wrote:
The reason why we have tainted is, that there are patents, which restrain
some user to use this software. So, it's a question of legality, which
should get the higher priority. The differentiation if it's free or
not-free is only a question of
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If we go
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand this as: software that might be free or open source =
can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not
the requirement.
2011/7/6 Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com:
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang
On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath
Anssi Hannula a écrit :
On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samirahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at
2011/7/7 andre999 and...@laposte.net:
Anssi Hannula a écrit :
On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samirahmadsamir3...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain
Am Donnerstag 17 März 2011, 09:14:09 schrieb Samuel Verschelde:
However, as the whole discussion seems to revolve around only one practical
package, what would be even better would be convince and help upstream to
solve the licensing issue (if that's feasible).
I just wanted to aks how many
Quote: Samuel Verschelde wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 09:14
Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those
packages
both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to
the
fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free.
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 05:06 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include
source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too
strict about their free/non-free subdivision):
I was in Vienna in May 2004 when we first
On 15.03.2011 12:28, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 05:06 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include
source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too
strict about their free/non-free subdivision):
I
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 11:28
amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the
tarball,
as this download the code from the internet at compile time. The
resulting code is IMHO
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 18:36 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors
that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles.
Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into
tainted (where it belongs for dependencies)
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
them.
I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided
to
split PLF for
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
them.
I do. Stormi do ( or seems
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 21:30
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted
On 13.03.2011 22:01, Thomas Backlund wrote:
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS
On 14.03.2011 15:30, Tux99 wrote:
Quote: Anssi Hannula wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 00:35
On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote:
Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than
'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern
than a
non-FOSS license, but
Tux99 a écrit :
I was looking at Mandriva non-free SRPM directory since Mageia doesn't have
much in non-free yet.
I haven't actually counted if the majority has source or not, so you might
be right, but we are digressing here because like I said in the first post
the question here in this
André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of
'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was
made a long time ago and is not up for debate here.
With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of licenses
that source code can come
Tux99 a écrit :
If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors
that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles.
Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into
tainted (where it belongs for dependencies) and marking tainted as being
for ALL
Tux99 a écrit :
André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of
'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was
made a long time ago and is not up for debate here.
With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of licenses
that
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of
Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 23:28 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:18
Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe
for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do
commercial business around it, and also pay the patent holder for
usage,
as seen when accepting the
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 00:59 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:18
Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe
for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do
commercial business around it, and also pay
I was looking at Mandriva non-free SRPM directory since Mageia doesn't have
much in non-free yet.
I haven't actually counted if the majority has source or not, so you might
be right, but we are digressing here because like I said in the first post
the question here in this thread is about a
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted
(contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world).
Should
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted
(contains sw. that is
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
that's both non-free (open source
On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote:
Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than
'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern than a
non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both choices are far from ideal, I
believe the only really clean solution would
71 matches
Mail list logo
