Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/9 andre999<[email protected]>:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil<[email protected]>:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerr<[email protected]>:
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 same time?
Because free is a matter of license, while tainted is a matter of
patents.
For example, the libdvdcss2 is free, as the the source-code is open (GPL)
but it touches the patent issue, so it's tainted.
Yes, if you regard patents not as a criterium for free or non-free
then this division makes sense.
From that point of view we need the same structure as PLF
(tainted-free and tainted-non-free).
As well, the question of patent claims is a totally hypothetical problem, in
almost every country -- including the USA -- for mirrors that carry distros
like Mageia.
(In the USA, the patent office used to systematically refuse patent claims
on software. And patents are only examined for conflicting US patents
before being registered. Not for the acceptability of the patent itself.)
So basically, tainted is for the benefit of those who would like to support
software patents.
You say that people who obey to the laws of their country are to blame
for obeying these laws? That's ridiculous.
It is not at all a question of obeying laws.
A patent is granted to give certain civil rights on the part of the patent
holder, for original developments, that are not obvious from existing
knowledge. The idea is to encourage innovation by protecting the investments
made by innovators.
Because patents are granted essentially on the basis of not conflicting with
other patents (especially software patents), there is no assurance that a
patent is valid at all. Patents on software are particularly problematic, as
software is based on logic, and what is obvious from existing knowledge is not
necessarily apparent to those not in the computer field. It most countries
such patents are denied.
In the USA, patents on software are (at least sometimes) accepted, most patent
claims are not supported by the courts. In other words, they are not valid.
If you had read the reference, you should have understood that.
The fact that nobody (in FOSS community) has been called to court yet
does not mean that the related laws do not exist!
The Debian paper (Romain linked to) has an answer to the reasons.
Which clearly indicates that the risk is minimal in the countries where such a
risk exists. According to the report, no cases to date against FOSS software,
distributed by non-commercial entities. Basically my point.
It also warns against paranoia about patents.
This paranoia seems to me a bit like never crossing a street because one might
get run over by a bus. Even if one crosses in a marked crosswalk.
Besides, tainted is not only about patents, it's also about software
which is illegal in certain countries (like libdvdcss).
Ok, a relatively limited application.
So in all, maybe a handful of packages at most should be in tainted.
So why do we have more than 150 ?
--
André
