[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Wed Oct 13 11:49:24 CEST 2010

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:50, Marc Paré <marc at marcpare.com> wrote:
+> Let the user then assume that responsibility/liability.
+> This is where, I consider the "easy urpmi" served its purpose well. It
+> installed repos where the available software that most users would need was
+> made available, but this again was by user choice.
+
+I don't really see how this would "fix" the issue; by using a
+third-party repository (plf or through easy urpmi) you just move the
+concerns to another provider:
+ - if the user is liable anyway, having a single or several providers
+doesn't matter;
+ - if the user is not liable anyway, having several providers only
+moves the liability from one provider to the other one.
+
+This particular point, about _patented_ software is a tricky one
+indeed. Dealing with local/international laws is tricky. Especially
+when both change over time.
+
+However, first point is not to mix different issues here:
+ - supported software and not-supported (and what means "supported")
+ - free vs. non-free/proprietary software (as in FSF/OSI definitions)
+ - gratis vs. paid software
+ - for non-free software, distribution/usage cases may be tricky
+(skype, opera for instance)
+ - software implementation/distribution that violates/have to comply
+specific laws (encryption, DRMs)
+ - for patented software/methods, implementation/distribution/usage
+cases are tricky as well (a patent may or may not block you from using
+the method, depends on who holds the patent and for what purpose).
+ - maybe more with more details; Anssi pretty much defined categories
+in his first message here.
+
+We definitely can't say bluntly "let's ignore all laws because we
+can't enforce them all". We must define our policies for what goes in
+Mageia repositories, what stays out, what goes out (and why). These
+policies must align with (and be part of) Mageia values and direction.
+
+
+Cheers,
+
+Romain
+