Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Hello, as this discussion has come to a standstill, could we please restart this to get some results and some decisions? This is going on for some months, back and forth and seems we have come nowhere. Or has there already been some progress, which i have overseen, besides this: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=software_inclusion_policy http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=software_patents_policy As far as FAAC is concerned, if we can't have this in the repos because it supposedly contains code based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISOISO MPEG-4 reference code, whose license is not compatible with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_LicenseLGPL license, according to wikipedia. Then why do we have FAAD2 in the repos, which seems to contain copyrighted code from german Nero AG? Citing wikipedia from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAAC#Licensing FAAD2 is licensed under the GPL v2 (and later GPL versions). Code from FAAD2 is copyright of Nero AG (the appropriate copyright message mentioned in section 2c of the GPLv2). The source code contains a note that the use of this software may require the payment of patent royalties.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:05 in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel Wolfgang Bornath wrote: [snip] We have a different perception of laws, so it seems. Very likely you are subject to different laws. They vary a lot from place to place.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:04 in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev- odjjhxpcy38dnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? Message-ID: CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrjim- t9WuiTNHXmZ/pmdbdnxm4b3sadeiaxzp0fzj8uut...@public.gmane.org: 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? ... 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. 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. -- wobo +1 I live in the USA, and while I do not personally support the concept of software pantents, I also do not want to violate them as long as they are leagally recognized where I live. For me, this is not a matter of risk, but one of ethics, morality, and respect. IMHO, the fact that my Countries Society recognizes patents as being legally binding makes it my responsibility to honor them, so I want to know if a software package may be affected by one or more patent(s) before I install it on my computer. If I know that (for example) package foo is affected by a patent, I can search for the patent holder, and make contact to request permission to ust the software, then abide with their response. This way, I fulfill my obligation to ask permission before using software that is (or may be) affected by some one elses property. I would no more use patented software without permission here in the USA than I would take my neighbor's lawnmower to cut my grass without his permission. Does that lawnmower have wheels on it? The wheel has been patented. www.ipmenu.com/archive/AUI_2001100012.pdf I do not live in the USA. I am not a lawyer. If you are interested, I can give you some background about why I laugh at some patents. I understand that the following may not be practicable, but I would like all software that is affected by a patent (and perhaps other licensing or copyright restrictions) to be placed in a restricted (tainted) repository. Also I would like to see patent (or contact) information in the software package's description to help facilitate my ability to ask permission to use the software. By doing these things, Mageia is doing more to support my ability to live by my personal convictions than to support patent law. Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. Registered Linux User 247790
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/14 blind Pete 0123pe...@gmail.com: on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:04 in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev- odjjhxpcy38dnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? Message-ID: CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrjim- t9WuiTNHXmZ/pmdbdnxm4b3sadeiaxzp0fzj8uut...@public.gmane.org: 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? ... 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. 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. -- wobo +1 I live in the USA, and while I do not personally support the concept of software pantents, I also do not want to violate them as long as they are leagally recognized where I live. For me, this is not a matter of risk, but one of ethics, morality, and respect. IMHO, the fact that my Countries Society recognizes patents as being legally binding makes it my responsibility to honor them, so I want to know if a software package may be affected by one or more patent(s) before I install it on my computer. If I know that (for example) package foo is affected by a patent, I can search for the patent holder, and make contact to request permission to ust the software, then abide with their response. This way, I fulfill my obligation to ask permission before using software that is (or may be) affected by some one elses property. I would no more use patented software without permission here in the USA than I would take my neighbor's lawnmower to cut my grass without his permission. Does that lawnmower have wheels on it? The wheel has been patented. www.ipmenu.com/archive/AUI_2001100012.pdf I do not live in the USA. I am not a lawyer. If you are interested, I can give you some background about why I laugh at some patents. Everybody here laughs at software patents (more or less). That's not the issue. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? Message-ID: CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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? ... 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. 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. -- wobo +1 I live in the USA, and while I do not personally support the concept of software pantents, I also do not want to violate them as long as they are leagally recognized where I live. For me, this is not a matter of risk, but one of ethics, morality, and respect. IMHO, the fact that my Countries Society recognizes patents as being legally binding makes it my responsibility to honor them, so I want to know if a software package may be affected by one or more patent(s) before I install it on my computer. If I know that (for example) package foo is affected by a patent, I can search for the patent holder, and make contact to request permission to ust the software, then abide with their response. This way, I fulfill my obligation to ask permission before using software that is (or may be) affected by some one elses property. I would no more use patented software without permission here in the USA than I would take my neighbor's lawnmower to cut my grass without his permission. I understand that the following may not be practicable, but I would like all software that is affected by a patent (and perhaps other licensing or copyright restrictions) to be placed in a restricted (tainted) repository. Also I would like to see patent (or contact) information in the software package's description to help facilitate my ability to ask permission to use the software. By doing these things, Mageia is doing more to support my ability to live by my personal convictions than to support patent law. I think we should not do that. Because we probably have more useful things to do than documenting patents and helping patent holders. And because it doesn't help users, on the contrary, it makes it more dangerous for them to use the software, because they cannot say they didn't know about the patent.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 13 July 2011 14:27, nicolas vigier bo...@mars-attacks.org wrote: On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? Message-ID: CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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? ... 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. 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. -- wobo +1 I live in the USA, and while I do not personally support the concept of software pantents, I also do not want to violate them as long as they are leagally recognized where I live. For me, this is not a matter of risk, but one of ethics, morality, and respect. IMHO, the fact that my Countries Society recognizes patents as being legally binding makes it my responsibility to honor them, so I want to know if a software package may be affected by one or more patent(s) before I install it on my computer. If I know that (for example) package foo is affected by a patent, I can search for the patent holder, and make contact to request permission to ust the software, then abide with their response. This way, I fulfill my obligation to ask permission before using software that is (or may be) affected by some one elses property. I would no more use patented software without permission here in the USA than I would take my neighbor's lawnmower to cut my grass without his permission. I understand that the following may not be practicable, but I would like all software that is affected by a patent (and perhaps other licensing or copyright restrictions) to be placed in a restricted (tainted) repository. Also I would like to see patent (or contact) information in the software package's description to help facilitate my ability to ask permission to use the software. By doing these things, Mageia is doing more to support my ability to live by my personal convictions than to support patent law. I think we should not do that. Because we probably have more useful things to do than documenting patents and helping patent holders. And because it doesn't help users, on the contrary, it makes it more dangerous for them to use the software, because they cannot say they didn't know about the patent. (However, each package has a URL field, with a link to the upstream web site, that could be a good starting point for a search for those who wanna do it). -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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. 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. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 12.07.2011 04:42, andre999 wrote: Romain d'Alverny a écrit : Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here: http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce: http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ). Romain Interesting reading. Warning against paranoia regarding software patents. So maybe we should have a policy of putting packages in tainted for patent reasons only after being notified by the patent holder ? We are unlikely to be notified (Ubuntu/Debian hasn't been to my knowledge), so that would effectively make tainted empty. Or some other significant factor regarding actual willingness to attempt to enforce ? Or actual validity ? (In the few jurisdictions accepting software patents, of course.) That is what is done. If there is a licensing program or past enforcement, it is considered as tainted. -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? Message-ID: CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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? ... 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. 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. -- wobo +1 I live in the USA, and while I do not personally support the concept of software pantents, I also do not want to violate them as long as they are leagally recognized where I live. For me, this is not a matter of risk, but one of ethics, morality, and respect. IMHO, the fact that my Countries Society recognizes patents as being legally binding makes it my responsibility to honor them, so I want to know if a software package may be affected by one or more patent(s) before I install it on my computer. If I know that (for example) package foo is affected by a patent, I can search for the patent holder, and make contact to request permission to ust the software, then abide with their response. This way, I fulfill my obligation to ask permission before using software that is (or may be) affected by some one elses property. I would no more use patented software without permission here in the USA than I would take my neighbor's lawnmower to cut my grass without his permission. I understand that the following may not be practicable, but I would like all software that is affected by a patent (and perhaps other licensing or copyright restrictions) to be placed in a restricted (tainted) repository. Also I would like to see patent (or contact) information in the software package's description to help facilitate my ability to ask permission to use the software. By doing these things, Mageia is doing more to support my ability to live by my personal convictions than to support patent law. Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. Registered Linux User 247790
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/12 Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. ewil...@bex.net: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com To: Mageia development mailing-list mageia-dev@mageia.org Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? Message-ID: CA+h4nj6KtYu8vUFcZ4mWUO08J5ZyxB5XnN2bsSLoqm8R7w6E=w...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a ?crit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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? ... 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. 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. -- wobo +1 I live in the USA, and while I do not personally support the concept of software pantents, I also do not want to violate them as long as they are leagally recognized where I live. For me, this is not a matter of risk, but one of ethics, morality, and respect. IMHO, the fact that my Countries Society recognizes patents as being legally binding makes it my responsibility to honor them, so I want to know if a software package may be affected by one or more patent(s) before I install it on my computer. If I know that (for example) package foo is affected by a patent, I can search for the patent holder, and make contact to request permission to ust the software, then abide with their response. This way, I fulfill my obligation to ask permission before using software that is (or may be) affected by some one elses property. I would no more use patented software without permission here in the USA than I would take my neighbor's lawnmower to cut my grass without his permission. I understand that the following may not be practicable, but I would like all software that is affected by a patent (and perhaps other licensing or copyright restrictions) to be placed in a restricted (tainted) repository. Also I would like to see patent (or contact) information in the software package's description to help facilitate my ability to ask permission to use the software. By doing these things, Mageia is doing more to support my ability to live by my personal convictions than to support patent law. Thx for youor thoughts, this is the first time a user participates in this discussion who is actually affected by the issue we are talking about. It's a totally different point of view if you are affected and you care. This is something we should regard as a standard in all discussions about such issues: ask the people who are affected by the issue in question. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/12 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/12 andre999 and...@laposte.net: 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 strongly advise NOT to do this. I gave my reasons and (much more important) one of the people who are affected gave his reasons. I see no sense in continuing this. We have a different perception of laws, so it seems. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On mardi 12 juillet 2011 at 22:48, andre999 wrote : 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. You should not do that, because you will end up with a broken repository, as the hdlist files will contain references to files which are not present on the mirror. A repository must be mirrored entirely or not at all. (And I think it is already enough work for the mirror maintainers to have to exclude some directory, they surely don't want to maintain per mirror custom rules) -- Renaud Michel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48: 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.) NO. The decision to have a separated repo for tainted software is not up for debate... It has already been discussed and decided long ago. as for the question that started this thread: Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? It's simple, and even outlined in the mirrors_policy: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy If there is a package that otherwise matches core or nonfree repos, but has a possible patent issue it ends up in tainted. As for splitting up tainted in tainted-core/tainted-nonfree, I dont think it's really worth it, and no-one really argued for it when we discussed the mirror layout... -- Thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 23:08, Balcaen John mik...@mageia.org wrote: On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote: [...] 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.) I hope you're not serious when writing thoses lines. Actually, this is what seems to be a standard process in the industry when you read the headlines. One doesn't hear about (software) patents when licensing occurs as expected, but when someone in the industry challenges (or is challenged by) some other actor patent. Because that's the only way to prove a patent to be ineffective (for various reasons) before it expires. (I am not proposing one or the other option - and it's going out of the initial question in this thread - tmb reframed it well). Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Backlund t...@mageia.org wrote: andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48: 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.) NO. The decision to have a separated repo for tainted software is not up for debate... It has already been discussed and decided long ago. as for the question that started this thread: Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? It's simple, and even outlined in the mirrors_policy: http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy If there is a package that otherwise matches core or nonfree repos, but has a possible patent issue it ends up in tainted. As for splitting up tainted in tainted-core/tainted-nonfree, I dont think it's really worth it, and no-one really argued for it when we discussed the mirror layout... -- Thomas i can't agree more with you thomas.
[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
So there seems to be a wish for an other answer to this request : https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1730 Faac (and rpms built with it ) might appear at least in tainted repo ? same as they are in plf ... or in Debian squeeze multimedia repo, or in ATrpms repo for Fedora 15
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Romain d'Alverny a écrit : On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 23:08, Balcaen Johnmik...@mageia.org wrote: On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote: [...] 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.) I hope you're not serious when writing thoses lines. Actually, this is what seems to be a standard process in the industry when you read the headlines. One doesn't hear about (software) patents when licensing occurs as expected, but when someone in the industry challenges (or is challenged by) some other actor patent. Because that's the only way to prove a patent to be ineffective (for various reasons) before it expires. (I am not proposing one or the other option - and it's going out of the initial question in this thread - tmb reframed it well). Romain Ok. Part of my last post seems to have been overlooked. It proposes a solution to the problem presented in this thread ... where to put packages which qualify for both non-free and tainted. Note that all packages in tainted contain .tainted. in the name. rsync, used to update the mirrors, permits adding the option --exclude '.tainted.' to permit excluding such packages if a mirror wants to. So packages now in the tainted repos would be put in core or non-free as appropriate. And mirrors in affected countries, who choose to opt out of packages now in tainted would simply add the above rsync option. Most mirrors, which now carry tainted, would drop the tainted repos. (If they don't, these repos would simply become empty, so no harm done.) This would have the effect of making packages now in tainted more readily available, since it wouldn't be necessary to add these repos. Which should please the packagers that make these packages. We would have to make a few adjustments to show (or not) the packages tagged as tainted, but that shouldn't be difficult. So we would eliminate 10 respositories, while keeping the same functionality, as well as solving the non-free vs. tainted problem. Wouldn't that work ? -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 12 July 2011 23:14, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+mag...@gmail.com wrote: On mardi 12 juillet 2011 at 22:48, andre999 wrote : 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. You should not do that, because you will end up with a broken repository, as the hdlist files will contain references to files which are not present on the mirror. A repository must be mirrored entirely or not at all. Yes, but then tainted is a separate repo, mirror admins can simply not mirror it if they want (that was one of the reasons why it _is_ a separate repo). So not mirroring tainted wouldn't break anything (other than that users won't get the full set of repos, but that's up to each mirror admin to decide, we only offer the option). (And I think it is already enough work for the mirror maintainers to have to exclude some directory, they surely don't want to maintain per mirror custom rules) -- Renaud Michel -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/9 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here: http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce: http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ). Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/9 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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. 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. Besides, tainted is not only about patents, it's also about software which is illegal in certain countries (like libdvdcss). -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
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? Given Mageia's commitment to the promotion of free software, I believe that they should not. If Mageia wishes to distribute tainted nonfeee software, then that should be done through an additional separate tainted-nonfree repository. Jim
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/8 James Kerr j...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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? -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil tv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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). -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Liltv...@gmx.de: Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: 2011/7/8 James Kerrj...@jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk: 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. As non-free is for the benefit of those who would like to support free software. -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/7 nicolas vigier bo...@mars-attacks.org: On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented. Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace restrictive license with patents in my sentence. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/7 nicolas vigierbo...@mars-attacks.org: On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented. Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace restrictive license with patents in my sentence. free means that it can be redistributed with source code, with a free/open source license. non-free (in terms of the repos) means that it can be redistributed, but either not with source code, according to the license + or we simply don't have/can't get the source code. tainted was mostly for packages affected to some extent by tainted patents. Such packages could be free or non-free, that has nothing to do with being in tainted. Some discussions in the past considered that the likelihood of a patent impacting a particular software (in the few countries that do accept software packages to some extent, like the USA), should affect whether it goes into tainted or not. I don't know what consensus there was on this point, if any. There were some suggestions that non-free packages should go into non-free, even if considered subject to tainted patents. And some proposed excluding such packages. So the question is, should a non-free package potentially affected by patents go into non-free or tainted. Those more interested in using free as much as possible, might tend to say non-free, especially if they use tainted. So as to avoid using any non-free packages. Those who consider patents legitimate, among others, might tend to say tainted, especially if they use non-free. So as to avoid using any software which might be subject to patents. If they live in an area where software patents risk to be found legitimate, such as the USA. Of course, those who don't use non-free (except for software coming from it's manufacturer) or tainted, wouldn't be concerned by this question. -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/8 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/7 nicolas vigierbo...@mars-attacks.org: On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented. Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace restrictive license with patents in my sentence. free means that it can be redistributed with source code, with a free/open source license. non-free (in terms of the repos) means that it can be redistributed, but either not with source code, according to the license + or we simply don't have/can't get the source code. tainted was mostly for packages affected to some extent by tainted patents. Such packages could be free or non-free, that has nothing to do with being in tainted. Some discussions in the past considered that the likelihood of a patent impacting a particular software (in the few countries that do accept software packages to some extent, like the USA), should affect whether it goes into tainted or not. I don't know what consensus there was on this point, if any. That exactly was the reason why tainted was created. The gathering of such software in one repo to make it easy for users and mirror maintainers in those countries to avoid them if they chose (or are forced) to do so. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/8 andre999and...@laposte.net: Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : 2011/7/7 nicolas vigierbo...@mars-attacks.org: On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented. Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace restrictive license with patents in my sentence. free means that it can be redistributed with source code, with a free/open source license. non-free (in terms of the repos) means that it can be redistributed, but either not with source code, according to the license + or we simply don't have/can't get the source code. tainted was mostly for packages affected to some extent by tainted patents. Such packages could be free or non-free, that has nothing to do with being in tainted. Some discussions in the past considered that the likelihood of a patent impacting a particular software (in the few countries that do accept software packages to some extent, like the USA), should affect whether it goes into tainted or not. I don't know what consensus there was on this point, if any. That exactly was the reason why tainted was created. The gathering of such software in one repo to make it easy for users and mirror maintainers in those countries to avoid them if they chose (or are forced) to do so. Since as far as I know, nobody introduced any evidence during the debate of any mirror being pursued for carrying potentially patent-affected packages, despite the fact that many mirrors in the USA, for example, carry such packages, any problem for mirrors is a moot point. However users (or mirrors) that wish to respect patent claims would evidently appreciate avoiding the contents of a tainted repository. Remember that very few patent claims against software are ever validated by the courts. Most pursuits in the USA are against companies with very deep pockets, which are often settled out of court for convenience. Generally in these cases, the defending party is earning revenues from the subject of the patent claim. Which of course doesn't apply to software distributed for free by mirrors. (e.g., if I remember correctly, Novell paid license fees to Microsoft for patent claims, while other companies successfully contested the same claims in court.) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Am 17.03.2011 09:14, schrieb Samuel Verschelde: Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit : Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21 Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff, but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to them. I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided to split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care. Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion IMHO. As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people about the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight. That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers, users). Instead of moving stuff in non-free, you move them in non-free + tainted. That just bring more headaches, and more complexity. That's not a solution. Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those packages both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to the fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free. For now, I would propose either to put that package in non-free, explain to users that non-free packages may be tainted too, and envision after Mageia 1 to add a new media if the current solution really doesn't work, and maybe require a meta-package from tainted OR put it in tainted, explain that tainted can contain non-free packages, and require a dummy package from non- free, as Anssi proposed (on a second thought, I think that second option is better). Can we reach a decision ? (add this question to the next packagers meeting ?) *bump* As there was no decision reached, not even a concensus, how do we proceed now? As there is the next package (HandBrake) which also falls under both categories, tainted and non-free. The option of moving such packages to non-free, and requiring a package from tainted (or vice-versa) which explains shortly via a README.urpmi about the problem, and to enable the missing repo, sounds not that bad. (If you really want to go that far.) Regards
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Am 06.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. Doesn't seem so. If even Anssi asks me where this package should go, maybe this is not clear to everybody. Also if you reread this thread, there is no concesus here. Also regarding Ahmads answer. But if you tell me that is the status quo, and the others also say so, my question is anwered, and HandBrake should go to tainted.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 6 July 2011 13:40, Florian Hubold doktor5...@arcor.de wrote: Am 06.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. Doesn't seem so. If even Anssi asks me where this package should go, maybe this is not clear to everybody. Also if you reread this thread, there is no concesus here. Also regarding Ahmads answer. But if you tell me that is the status quo, and the others also say so, my question is anwered, and HandBrake should go to tainted. If HandBrake has a bundled faac, then it shouldn't go anywhere in the official Mageia repos, unless the bundles faac is disabled IIUC. -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. Although the wording should be clearer / more precise. Romain -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Am 06.07.2011 14:04, schrieb Ahmad Samir: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornathmolc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. Although the wording should be clearer / more precise. The reason why we have tainted is, that there are patents, which restrain some user to use this software. So, it's a question of legality, which should get the higher priority. The differentiation if it's free or not-free is only a question of ideology. Therefore, for me the situation is very simple. If there are questionable patents for a software, we have to put it in tainted (otherwise we destroy the whole idea of core/non-free/tainted). There is no other option. We may can think about a tainted-free and tainted-nonfree (like PLF) but IMHO it's not needed and as long as we don't have such a repo, all tainted packages have to be put into tainted (no matter what license they use). Regards, Thorsten
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. Although the wording should be clearer / more precise. Indeed. Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 06/07/11 12:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornathmolc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. I don't think that the last line is entirely consistent with what I understood was Mageia's commitment to provide a free distro for those users who want it. Such a user would have to investigate whether or not a tainted package was free or nonfree, or not use the tainted repo at all. Jim
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011, Thorsten van Lil wrote: The reason why we have tainted is, that there are patents, which restrain some user to use this software. So, it's a question of legality, which should get the higher priority. The differentiation if it's free or not-free is only a question of ideology. Therefore, for me the situation is very simple. If there are questionable patents for a software, we have to put it in tainted (otherwise we destroy the whole idea of core/non-free/tainted). There is no other option. We may There is other options. It would also be possible to not include nonfree patented software anywhere.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to express our stance on the issue in a clearer way... Although the wording should be clearer / more precise. Indeed. Romain -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to express our stance on the issue in a clearer way... Ok, fine then, fix this in the definition on the wiki. But make sure to explicit what becomes of software that is non free and questionable regarding patents (id est, it goes nowhere), so that the layout is clearer (here with a changed triage): - core: 100% free software - tainted: 100% free software, but locally subject to software patents or local legal terms - nonfree: non-free software - nowhere, we don't package/distribute this: non-free software, for which we may still have the source code or binaries, and a license to redistribute from author but patent law or other local provision may prevent to redistribute it anyway. (I am not taking sides here, just re-explaining your understanding) Romain
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/6 Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com: On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to express our stance on the issue in a clearer way... The point we made when discussing these issues was: - to provide a section where people who only want free software can have all free software (core) - to provide a section where people who want non-free software (mainly proprietary drivers, plugins, codecs) can have their drivers, plugins, whatever (non-free) - to provide a section where we can put software which may be illegal to use in certain countries (some codecs, libdvdcss2, etc.), so users and mirror maintainers in such countries can decide for themselves to use this or not (tainted) That's all. Now saying that faac should not be in tainted, where should it go if not in tainted? How does faac differ to other software which is in tainted? The only reason it should not be in tainted would be that we can not distribute it at all. This brings us back to the core of the discussion what kind of software Mageia should or should not provide. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote: On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny rdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath molc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to express our stance on the issue in a clearer way... I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere). There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in tainted, though. -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Anssi Hannula a écrit : On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote: On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samirahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornathmolc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to express our stance on the issue in a clearer way... I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere). There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in tainted, though. This discussion reminds me of the recent Oracle claims of patent infringement against Google, over Google's use of Java in Android. These patents were all issued by the US patent office. Google referred about 100 of these claims to the patent office for evaluation. The patent office invalidated all but 17. And these 17 may yet be invalidated by the courts. Google has not yet referred many other of the patent claims for examination by the patent office. So patent claims only _potentially_ result in legal problems. (As well as only in a few countries.) Which makes me think that the free/non-free distinction is probably much more important. My 2 cents :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
2011/7/7 andre999 and...@laposte.net: Anssi Hannula a écrit : On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote: On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samirahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alvernyrdalve...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornathmolc...@googlemail.com wrote: If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: 1. All non-free goes into non-free 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of licensing) will go into tainted. That's all. Clear and simple. The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses says: The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues. Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: - core hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) - nonfree hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same) - tainted hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. Third point is wrong, a license that is might be free or open source, which, I think, means only software with an open source software License. I understand this as: software that might be free or open source = can be not free or open source. might expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to express our stance on the issue in a clearer way... I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere). There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in tainted, though. This discussion reminds me of the recent Oracle claims of patent infringement against Google, over Google's use of Java in Android. These patents were all issued by the US patent office. Google referred about 100 of these claims to the patent office for evaluation. The patent office invalidated all but 17. And these 17 may yet be invalidated by the courts. Google has not yet referred many other of the patent claims for examination by the patent office. So patent claims only _potentially_ result in legal problems. (As well as only in a few countries.) potentially and only in a few countries are not valid arguments - especially for those who live in such countries. Which makes me think that the free/non-free distinction is probably much more important. I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Am Donnerstag 17 März 2011, 09:14:09 schrieb Samuel Verschelde: However, as the whole discussion seems to revolve around only one practical package, what would be even better would be convince and help upstream to solve the licensing issue (if that's feasible). I just wanted to aks how many packages this really affects. And which ones? Oliver
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Quote: Samuel Verschelde wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 09:14 Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those packages both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to the fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free. Agreed. For now, I would propose either to put that package in non-free, explain to users that non-free packages may be tainted too, and envision after Mageia 1 to add a new media if the current solution really doesn't work, and maybe require a meta-package from tainted OR put it in tainted, explain that tainted can contain non-free packages, and require a dummy package from non- free, as Anssi proposed (on a second thought, I think that second option is better). Why a temporary solution? The longer we postpone a proper solution the messier things will get. Also I really don't like the use of a meta or dummy package, that is even messier and confusing for the users. Since tainted+non-free packages will most likely have dependencies in tainted from a practical POV that would be the best place. A dedicated tainted+non-free repo would be the cleanest solution. Putting tainted+non-free in non-free is the worst solution both because of dependency issues and because it will be messy for mirror admins. So IMHO the choice is really between putting them in tainted and then describing tainted in the policy as being for ALL tainted packages (regardless if free or non-free) or else creating the dedicated tainted+non-free repo. Can we reach a decision ? (add this question to the next packagers meeting ?) TBH I don't thing IRC is suitable for decisions where people have to spend some time thinking about the consequences of various options. Email (i.e. here on the ML) seems better to me. However, as the whole discussion seems to revolve around only one practical package, what would be even better would be convince and help upstream to solve the licensing issue (if that's feasible). This question was triggered by the first tainted+non-free package I came across (the 4th package I decided to work on). But so far I already found four tainted+non-free packages (even though two might be dropped if the FOSS replacement fully replaces them) and I don't think these will be the last ones. I haven't search for them, I only came acroos them as I wanted to package them up, and then discovered this repo issue. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 05:06 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too strict about their free/non-free subdivision): I was in Vienna in May 2004 when we first discussed the split with the 3 others terrorists present ( but the change was effective 9 months later : http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.mandrake.plf.general/993 ), so I think I can call myself knowledgeable on the way things should be for PLF, despites having leaved the project some time ago. So if you provides examples, that's nice, but that's likely bugs. amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the tarball, as this download the code from the internet at compile time. The resulting code is IMHO non-free. I would suggest to drop it and to use http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencore-amr/ , which is more cleanly licensed ( Apache license ). That's how rpmfusion does. That's IMHO a bug that should be reported to PLF, unless Anssi disagree :) faac-1.28-3plf2011.0.src.rpm The software license is LGPL 2 or later, according to Sophie http://sophie.zarb.org/rpms/7f88a24475773b9426d03122bcaa521f Where will we put these in Mangeia? 'tainted' or 'non-free' or a new 'tainted+non-free' repo? amrnb - dropped, replaced by opencore-amr faac - tainted -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 15.03.2011 12:28, Michael Scherer wrote: Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 05:06 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too strict about their free/non-free subdivision): I was in Vienna in May 2004 when we first discussed the split with the 3 others terrorists present ( but the change was effective 9 months later : http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.mandrake.plf.general/993 ), so I think I can call myself knowledgeable on the way things should be for PLF, despites having leaved the project some time ago. So if you provides examples, that's nice, but that's likely bugs. amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the tarball, as this download the code from the internet at compile time. The resulting code is IMHO non-free. I would suggest to drop it and to use http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencore-amr/ , which is more cleanly licensed ( Apache license ). That's how rpmfusion does. That's IMHO a bug that should be reported to PLF, unless Anssi disagree :) What you say above is completely true. faac-1.28-3plf2011.0.src.rpm The software license is LGPL 2 or later, according to Sophie http://sophie.zarb.org/rpms/7f88a24475773b9426d03122bcaa521f It is tagged incorrectly. It contains ISO reference source code that forbids use in products that do not claim conformance to MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4 standards. Actually faac is what this thread is about. Where will we put these in Mangeia? 'tainted' or 'non-free' or a new 'tainted+non-free' repo? amrnb - dropped, replaced by opencore-amr faac - tainted -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 11:28 amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the tarball, as this download the code from the internet at compile time. The resulting code is IMHO non-free. If you look closer you will find that the source rpm actually contains the zip file with the code that is supposed to be downloaded. It also contains a .doc that apparently is not distributable. I would suggest to drop it and to use http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencore-amr/ , which is more cleanly licensed ( Apache license ). Is opencore-amr a drop-in replacement for amrnb/amrwb for ALL packages that depend on it? A quick google search didn't turn up a lot, only that apparently gstreamer and ffmpeg can make use of opencore-amr. Is the audio quality comparable? I couldn't find any indication of that, but gstreamer has put opencore-amr into the ugly plugins, rather than bad where amrnb/amrwb are, I don't know if that's an indication of worse quality. With regards to facc there is no equivalent replacement for it and it's used by by a few projects so definitely can't be dropped. Also while the faac license is non-free, it's not a problem to distribute it, so the only problem we have is to decide where to put it (keeping in mind where packages that depend on it will go too). -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 18:36 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles. Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into tainted (where it belongs for dependencies) and marking tainted as being for ALL tainted packages (regardless if free or nonfree)? Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff, but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to them. I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided to split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care. Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion IMHO. As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people about the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight. Putting tainted separated from non-free is a way to remind to people that patents and various similar issues do still exists, that there is problem regarding free software unrelated to license, and that's a separate concern from being non-free. Putting non-free rpms in tainted will blur the line between the 2. The only use I would see about separating non-free and tainted is for mirrors maintainers, but we cannot guarantee much regarding non-free, as we had various weird stuff in PLF that would prevent some mirrors from having it. If this is non-free, it goes to non-free, that's all. And we link nothing to it outside of non-free. Which would mean other packages like gstreamer will have reduced capability. You should read some documents about gstreamer architecture. Nothing prevent to have a single plugin in non-free linked to anything there, and loaded by gstreamer later. Yes, this may be more work but I assume that people who have time to post on mls have time to get things done. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21 Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff, but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to them. I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided to split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care. Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion IMHO. As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people about the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight. That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers, users). Putting 'tainted+non-free' packages into 'non-free' is a messy unsatisfactory workaround, not a real solution. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21 Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff, but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to them. I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided to split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care. Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion IMHO. As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people about the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight. That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers, users). Instead of moving stuff in non-free, you move them in non-free + tainted. That just bring more headaches, and more complexity. That's not a solution. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 21:30 Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21 Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff, but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to them. I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided to split PLF for that precise reason, there is more than 2 of us to care. Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion IMHO. As much as the reverse, it all depends on what you tell to people about the repository, what they expect and what you prefer to highlight. That's exactly why I suggested earlier in this thread that we need an additional repo for 'tainted+non-free' packages, that's the only solution that would satisfy every preference people might have and at the same time make things clear for everyone (packagers, mirror maintainers, users). Instead of moving stuff in non-free, you move them in non-free + tainted. Nothing is being moved, these packages aren't in any repo yet. We are trying to decide what the best possible solution is. That just bring more headaches, and more complexity. That's not a solution. Sorry but your answer is not a proper argument, it only gives me the impression that you are summarily dismissing anything that you personally don't like and after dictating how things have to be done. Benefits of creating a separate 'tainted+non-free' as I mentioned in my previous post: - clear separation of packages based on free/no-free and tainted/no-tainted status - mirror maintainers can easily exclude tainted packages if the laws of their country require it - users can easily select packages according to their beliefs (free/non-free) or legal concerns (patent issues) Also I thought that in the debate about whether to separate 'tainted' packages that was held here on this ML in the early days, the main argument was that it should be easy for users and mirror maintainers to avoid packages with patent issues if they so wish. Your decision to put 'tainted+non-free' packages in 'non-free' completely undermines that, therefore I don't consider it a reasonable solution. From a packager point of view the best decision would be to put 'tainted+non-free' packages in 'tainted' since they are most likely to have dependencies in 'tainted'. If you don't want 'tainted+non-free' packages in 'tainted' then they might as well go in a separate 'tainted+non-free' repository, since the added complexity for the packager is the same regardless if they go in 'tainted+non-free' or 'non-free'. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 13.03.2011 22:01, Thomas Backlund wrote: sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99: During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is the tainted repo for all tainted packages, both free and non-free tainted, as thats a bigger issue than nonfree I agree. -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 14.03.2011 15:30, Tux99 wrote: Quote: Anssi Hannula wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 00:35 On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote: Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than 'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern than a non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both choices are far from ideal, I believe the only really clean solution would be to create a 'tainted+non-free' repo just like PLF has. One option would be to add it to tainted, but have it require a dummy metapackage from non-free repository, so that it can be only installed if non-free media is enabled. It might cause too much confusion, though, as the error message wouldn't be very clear. I agree that the metapackage solution is impractical since it would cause too much confusion for users. We could make it Requires: nonfree-repository-required or similar so that the error message would give a better hint of what is wrong. -- Anssi Hannula
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Tux99 a écrit : I was looking at Mandriva non-free SRPM directory since Mageia doesn't have much in non-free yet. I haven't actually counted if the majority has source or not, so you might be right, but we are digressing here because like I said in the first post the question here in this thread is about a package that has code with a non-free license but is open source (and is 'tainted'). To quote my initial mail: ... what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). To complicate matters further this package will have dependencies to some other 'tainted' packages, which also a reason why 'tainted' seems more appropiate for this specifica package at least. What do you mean by open source but not a FOSS license ? Normally open source means that it is licensed to be freely redistributed (without royalties), with available source code. Public domain software with available source code, although not having a FOSS license, is also considered free. As for the point about potential patent claims, in the U.S. (the usual example), I don't know of any example of a mirror of an open source distro that has had problems with software patent claims. In the U.S., software patent claims are made against those who make money from the software, and few such cases succeed. No money is to be made by pursuing those who give away software for free. Ubuntu, for example, has many mirrors in the U.S. carrying potentially patent-threatened software, without problems. I would suggest that if the software in question is _really_ open source, put it in core. If not, put it in non-free. If eventually it becomes _directly_ threatened by software patent claims, _then_ consider transfering it to another repository. (Besides the practical question of only responding to a potential threat when really needed, if you don't consider software patents legitimate, there is nothing inherently wrong with the software anyway. As long as it works. So why call it tainted.) my 2 cents :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of 'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was made a long time ago and is not up for debate here. With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of licenses that source code can come with, not all of them meet the defintion of the free software foundation: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Those that don't meet that definition are considered non free, this is just a convention commonly used in the Linux world, personally I'm not too attached to this convention, but again this is not up for debate here. I hope this clarifies things for you! :) -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Tux99 a écrit : If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles. Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into tainted (where it belongs for dependencies) and marking tainted as being for ALL tainted packages (regardless if free or nonfree)? Putting tainted packages in nonfree just causes more confusion IMHO. If this is non-free, it goes to non-free, that's all. And we link nothing to it outside of non-free. Or make the links from outside optional. Which would mean other packages like gstreamer will have reduced capability. I'm starting to wonder if my hope of helping towards making Mageia an even better multimedia (audio/video) distro than Mandriva is, is unrealistic. From my point of view, not unrealistic at all, Just don't be dogmatic about calling software potentially subject to patent claims tainted -- until directly threatened. And allow core packages to _optionally_ use packages in non-free. (That is, avoid requires.) What would be useful, is the capability, when installing a core package, to optionally install a related package from a non-core repository, even if the non-core repository in question isn't activated. With that functionality, at least you won't be restricted by the repositories. I don't know how much needs to be done to acquire this functionality, but it has already been discussed on Mageia lists. Your goals might be more work than you originally thought, but it's doable. Just don't give up :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Tux99 a écrit : André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of 'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was made a long time ago and is not up for debate here. With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of licenses that source code can come with, not all of them meet the defintion of the free software foundation: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Those that don't meet that definition are considered non free, this is just a convention commonly used in the Linux world, personally I'm not too attached to this convention, but again this is not up for debate here. I hope this clarifies things for you! :) Don't forget that licenses accepted by OSI are acceptable as well. If you like, give me the designated license and I'll check it out for you. The Mageia license policy, as I understand it, is a little more open than that of Mandriva, as well as that of Fedora. (I stand to be corrected, of course :) ) Since you aren't enthusiastic about designating packages as tainted, why not put them in core or non-free until directly threatened ? As far as I know, there is no clear policy of when they should go in the other repository, and even founding members have suggested this approach. Note also that putting a package in tainted means that it need not be carried by all official mirrors. (By the way, my objection is essentially to the name, which implies that there is something inherently wrong with the packages -- not the case if one doesn't accept software patents, and the software works.) (Here in Canada software patents don't exist.) Note that there has been general discussion of improvements to the installer which will allow, when installing core packages, to optionally install related/suggested non-core packages from other repositories at the same time -- even if these other repositories aren't activated. (Something I would like to contribute to myself.) These improvements should help your goals a lot. So don't give up :) -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49 Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit : sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99: During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is the tainted repo for all tainted packages, both free and non-free tainted, as thats a bigger issue than nonfree -- Thomas I would have said the opposite, so that using core + tainted you're sure to get free software :) The same. Ie, a non-free may have more stringent distribution requirements than a free software. I don't understand what you mean, the packages in 'non-free' are being distributed the same way as the ones in 'core' or 'tainted', i.e. on all mirrors and partially on ISOs/CDs/DVDs, otherwise we wouldn't even be able to include them in the repos at all. The issue with 'non-free' is generally one of limitations on the use of the software and/or source code not normally of distribution, in Mandriva the software with distribution restrictions normally ends up in 'restricted' not in 'non-free'. On the other hand a 'tainted+non-free' package has the bigger issue of containing patent issues (at least for some countries) so I would assume that it's a lot more important to keep 'tainted' packages clearly separate for people or mirrors that don't want to risk breaking patent laws in the affected countries. If we put 'tainted+non-free' software in 'non-free' then it will be very hard for a normal user or mirror admin to recognize it as being a potential patent liability. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 23:28 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49 Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit : sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99: During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is the tainted repo for all tainted packages, both free and non-free tainted, as thats a bigger issue than nonfree -- Thomas I would have said the opposite, so that using core + tainted you're sure to get free software :) The same. Ie, a non-free may have more stringent distribution requirements than a free software. I don't understand what you mean, the packages in 'non-free' are being distributed the same way as the ones in 'core' or 'tainted', i.e. on all mirrors and partially on ISOs/CDs/DVDs, otherwise we wouldn't even be able to include them in the repos at all. A non-free package is also something like do not use if you are military. We had the case in PLF. The issue with 'non-free' is generally one of limitations on the use of the software and/or source code not normally of distribution, in Mandriva the software with distribution restrictions normally ends up in 'restricted' not in 'non-free'. On the other hand a 'tainted+non-free' package has the bigger issue of containing patent issues (at least for some countries) so I would assume that it's a lot more important to keep 'tainted' packages clearly separate for people or mirrors that don't want to risk breaking patent laws in the affected countries. If we put 'tainted+non-free' software in 'non-free' then it will be very hard for a normal user or mirror admin to recognize it as being a potential patent liability. Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do commercial business around it, and also pay the patent holder for usage, as seen when accepting the license on installation. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:18 Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do commercial business around it, and also pay the patent holder for usage, as seen when accepting the license on installation. I have the impression there is a misunderstanding, the sw you are talking about is a special case, and in the case of Adobe it's actually not open source software at all, I was talking about non-commercial open source software that has a FOSS incompatible license (and is 'tainted', i.e. with patent issues). As far as I can see most of the stuff in 'non-free' is like this, open source but with a FOSS incompatible license, not binary-only. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 00:59 +0100, Tux99 a écrit : Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:18 Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do commercial business around it, and also pay the patent holder for usage, as seen when accepting the license on installation. I have the impression there is a misunderstanding, the sw you are talking about is a special case, and in the case of Adobe it's actually not open source software at all, I was talking about non-commercial open source software that has a FOSS incompatible license (and is 'tainted', i.e. with patent issues). As far as I can see most of the stuff in 'non-free' is like this, open source but with a FOSS incompatible license, not binary-only. We don't look at the same repository then : http://sophie.zarb.org/distrib/Mageia/cauldron/i586/media/nonfree-release There is at the moment 0 software with sources. If you speak of Mandriva : http://sophie.zarb.org/distrib/Mandriva/cooker/i586/media/non-free-release To me, the vast majority are distributed without sources. Those that have sources are free software ( freecol for example ), but requires something from non-free. -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
I was looking at Mandriva non-free SRPM directory since Mageia doesn't have much in non-free yet. I haven't actually counted if the majority has source or not, so you might be right, but we are digressing here because like I said in the first post the question here in this thread is about a package that has code with a non-free license but is open source (and is 'tainted'). To quote my initial mail: ... what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). To complicate matters further this package will have dependencies to some other 'tainted' packages, which also a reason why 'tainted' seems more appropiate for this specifica package at least. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is the tainted repo for all tainted packages, both free and non-free or should it go into non-free, i.e. non-free is for both unencumbered and tainted packages or do we need a separate tainted+non-free repository just like plf has? -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99: During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is the tainted repo for all tainted packages, both free and non-free tainted, as thats a bigger issue than nonfree -- Thomas
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit : sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99: During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world). Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is the tainted repo for all tainted packages, both free and non-free tainted, as thats a bigger issue than nonfree -- Thomas I would have said the opposite, so that using core + tainted you're sure to get free software :) Samuel
Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?
On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote: Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than 'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern than a non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both choices are far from ideal, I believe the only really clean solution would be to create a 'tainted+non-free' repo just like PLF has. One option would be to add it to tainted, but have it require a dummy metapackage from non-free repository, so that it can be only installed if non-free media is enabled. It might cause too much confusion, though, as the error message wouldn't be very clear. The PLF 'non-free' repo contains quite a few packages [1], I would think we will want to add most of them to Mageia too, so this will continue to be a problem. Most (if not all) of those either a) do not have patent issues and are thus eligible for mga/mdv non-free repositories (mdv didn't have a non-free section until 5 years ago, explaining why they are in plf), or b) are completely unredistributable, and thus uneligible for any mga/mdv repository. [1] http://distrib-coffee.ipsl.jussieu.fr/pub/linux/plf/mandriva/cooker/non-fre e/binary/i586/ -- Anssi Hannula
