Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:51:59 schreef Romain d'Alverny: > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes > > <maarten.vanr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund: > > [...] > > > >> > A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However, i > >> > do understand that some people would not want to install firmware, > >> > but i think we should do this in another way, (like installing a meta > >> > package that enforces some limits.) > >> > codecs seem odd to be separate, if they have patented problems they > >> > should go in non_free, if no problem, they can go in core. > >> > >> That is doable. > >> The reason for having it separate was because its the most "problematic" > >> one. (codecs have more issues than firmware) > > > > What i meant here, is why is firmware separate from core? why is codecs > > separate from core? > > > > imo, i would put firmware and codecs in either core or non_free. > > I guess we should separate concerns? > - non_free as in "not (really) free software" (source code may be > available, but license, redistribution conditions, etc.) > - problematic stuff as in "binary closed thing" (most firmware, but > not only eventually) > - problematic stuff as in "(likely) patented" (some codecs) > > so that we don't mix issues when one has to decide what to mirror/use or > not.
you know what? how about having a "possibly_patented" and disable it by default; but have them all in there. because there are countries where most of those are allowed. (i suspect they aren't necessarily codecs) how about having a "binary_only" repository? (i suspect they aren't all firmwares?) or they could just be in non_free; because that's what they are...