Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/12 andre999<[email protected]>:
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 ?
Sorry, but I do not understand your way of thinking. If a law exists
it exists. It does not matter to a law whether it is likely to be
enforced. Period.
True. But patents have nothing to do with enforcing laws.
This is not paranoia, it is a matter of mind set. If robbery would not
be prosecuted, would you go out and earn your doe by taking away
handbags from old ladies? You would not, because it is wrong. For
those who are living in countries where patents are valid and accepted
by the law, using a patented software is wrong. So you must accept
that there are people who would not do it. Telling them how they
should think about it is not ours. That's why we have the tainted
repo.
In my mind, this argument misses the concept of software patents.
Firstly, patents are not laws. They are civil rights granted in exchange for
encouraging innovation.
However patents on software are granted without ensuring that the patents are
valid. (At least in the USA.) There is only a check on conflicts with other
patents. This is easy to understand, as validating patents on software is
quasi-impossible without considerable time and expense. Which is probably why
most countries do not accept software patents.
Software patents in fact discourage innovation, going against the basic
justification of patents.
In practice, virtually all software patents in the USA are found to be invalid,
when contested in the courts. Usually a form of costly legal harcelling is
used to extract royalties, from companies with deep pockets.
Note that patents are nothing more than a civil right, akin to trespassing.
So if someone walks up your sidewalk to knock on your door, would you accuse
them of trespassing ? I doubt it.
And I don't think that I would want to have such a neighbour.
A patent holder is not required to procecute, and in certain cases _not_
procecuting is very much in the interest of the patent holder.
Such as distributors of open source source software, who will tend to spread
the use of the particular functionality referred to by the patent.
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 things ?
---
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.
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 same time, we could choose a name that doesn't indicate that there is
something intrinsically wrong with the package.)
Regards :)
--
André
