On 11.01.2012 16:01, Pascal Terjan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:56, Anssi Hannula <an...@mageia.org> wrote: >> On 10.01.2012 15:07, Pascal Terjan wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 03:20, Anssi Hannula <an...@mageia.org> wrote: >>>> The problem is that that "balance" was achieved by sticking packages in >>>> PLF/main/contrib semi-randomly. For example, H.264 decoders and MPEG-4 >>>> video encoders are in main/core, while e.g. AAC audio decoders are in >>>> PLF/tainted. If one'd put them into an order, IMO H.264 and MPEG-4 would >>>> be much more prominent and tainted candidates instead of AAC decoding... >>>> Also, in e.g. MPEG-4 case we have encoders both in core and in tainted, >>>> e.g. we have ffmpeg in core, but xvid in tainted. >>> >>> I agree we need rules, but "being covered with patents" does not make >>> sense, as the patent owner may agree with using it in free software. >>> I think something like "No actively enforced patent" in core would be good. >> >> Possibly, but how do you define that, exactly? >> >> Does a licensing program count as "enforcing" or do you mean something else? > > Yes, that's what I meant
So it doesn't change anything regarding my original post, since all the codecs I talked about have licensing programs. -- Anssi Hannula