Johnny A. Solbu a écrit :
On Tuesday 30 October 2012 02:44, andre999 wrote:
If there is some constraint on the redistribution of a package in some
countries, such as patent claims or encryption technology used or
whatever, mirrors in affected countries may reasonably want to avoid
carrying such packages.
For this reason, we created the "tainted" repos, which are optional for
official mirrors.
However we added the additional restriction that packages in tainted
must also be open source, to satisfy those that don't want to install
non-free packages.
If we want to continue this additional restriction, we would have to
create another set of repos for packages that are both constrained
(tainted) and non-free, in order to carry such packages.
The problem of including nonfree spftware in tainted, is that it no longer is a
Free software repo in countries that don't accept software patents.
So how is that a problem ?
Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head to say that they have to
install a package just because it is in tainted.
Nobody can install all packages in core, nor all packages in nonfree.
Maybe one could install all packages in tainted (as there are not very
many), but it is normal to be selective in installing packages.
Would it help if a user could set a configuration to automatically
control the installation of non-free packages.
Something like "never", "confirm each time", or "always", similar to
what has been proposed for isos ?
Don't forget that packages in the tainted repo have to be downloaded
from the net, unlike packages in core or nonfree, which could be on an
iso. So having an additional control, and using the "never" option
would eliminate any chance of installing a non-free package from tainted.
Wouldn't that work for you ?
Nonfree software belongs in a nonfree tree. If we need to create a new repo for
them, so be it. That is the right thing to do.
No one said that the right thing to do would be easy. :-)=
However there are very few packages that meet this restriction. Also
the tainted repos contain relatively few packages, compared with core
and nonfree.
What has that got to do with anything?
Either a package is Free and open source software, or it is not. wether it
belongs in the majority or a tiny minority is not the issue.
The issue at stake is our Freedom.
Good point.
I think that we can all agree that all users have the freedom to not
install specific packages.
What many are asking is the freedom to readily access certain tainted +
non-free packages, while others are worried about the overhead that an
additional repo will bring for a relatively small number of packages.
So one possible compromise is putting all constrained packages in the
tainted repos.
I happens to live in a country where the packages in tainted is Free software
in every sense of the word. And I don't believe that I'm the only one that is.
Tainted is a convenience for those that live in a country that have software
patents, not the otherway around. Don't clutter the water for those of us where
tainted still is a Free software repo.
Firstly, software patents is only one factor that could put a package in
tainted. If you live in a NATO country, certain encryption software was
restricted in the past, and some may still be. So some software in
tainted may be constrained in your country.
My suggestion above for additional configuration options that would
allow automatically ignoring non-free packages in tainted would solve
your problem in practical terms, as well as solving the problem of freer
access to certain software for other users.
Note that I'm not likely to use such packages. I'm essentially a
bystander looking for a reasonable solution.
--
André
