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

Fri Oct 15 07:43:34 CEST 2010

Le vendredi 15 octobre 2010 01:18:37, Michael scherer a écrit :
+> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0200, Olivier Méjean wrote:
+> > Le jeudi 14 octobre 2010 20:55:01, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+> > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:22:01 Michael Scherer wrote:
+> > > > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+> > > > > Hi all!
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media
+> > > > > sectioning we should use on Mageia, and what should those sections
+> > > > > contain?
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in
+> > > > > this post, only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I
+> > > > > have one):
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > == Do we want a separated core repository?
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
+> > > > > Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)
+> > > > 
+> > > > How do we decide what would be in core ?
+> > > 
+> > > AFAICS the only reasonable reason would be to separate 'supported' and
+> > > 'unsupported' packages (whatever the definition we will choose for
+> > > those).
+> > 
+> > What is a supported package or what is an unsupported package ?
+> > 
+> > For Mandriva it was clear, packages on which Mandriva provides support is
+> > in main, if not it's in contrib.
+> 
+> No, since there was unsupported packages in main ( think stuff like
+> ld.so1.2 ), and support could perfectly answer to questions depending on
+> the contract, even on packages in contribs.
+> 
+> There is also weird stuff like php-yp ( in contrib ), who was built from
+> the same source than others php packages, who was thus in main and
+> supported.
+> 
+> No to mention that there was no process for deciding what goes in main,
+> except that it was required by something else in main. There is also
+> issues of old packages that were never moved out of main, despites not
+> really supported.
+> 
+> So no, it was not clear.
+
+http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia
+It seems clear that distinction of main and contrib was just related to 
+Mandriva wishes.
+
+> 
+> > > > > == What about patents?
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > Almost no software with patents: Fedora, Opensuse
+> > > > > 
+> > > > >  - Essentially no media codecs except theora/vorbis/ogg/vp8 etc.
+> > > > >  - Strange exception: libXft, Cairo and Qt4 are shipped with LCD
+> > > > >  filtering
+> > > > >  
+> > > > >    support enabled, even if it is disabled in freetype
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > No software with enforced patents: Debian
+> > > > > 
+> > > > >  - not included (at least): x264 (encoder), lame mp3 (encoder)
+> > > > >  - included (at least): MPEG/x decoders, H.264 decoders, MP3
+> > > > >  decoders,
+> > > > >  
+> > > > >    AAC decoders, AMR decoders, DTS decoders, AC3 decoders,
+> > > > >    WMV/WMA decoders, realvideo decoders, etc
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > Some software covered by patents not included: Mandriva
+> > > > > 
+> > > > >  - see below for more information
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > All software covered by patents allowed: Arch, Ubuntu
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > 
+> > > > > IMO we should alter our policy to match either Fedora, Debian or
+> > > > > Ubuntu.. The Mandriva policy makes no sense (for example, no AAC
+> > > > > decoder but yes for H.264 decoder and MPEG-4 encoder?).
+> > > > > I'm really not sure which way we should go, though. WDYT?
+> > > > 
+> > > > I would go the Debian way.
+> > > > Ubuntu and Fedora are tied to companies, and Debian is not, so their
+> > > > policies are likely more adapted to our own model.
+> > > > 
+> > > > Debian way seems to be more pragmatic that Ubuntu/Fedora on that
+> > > > matter.
+> > > 
+> > > Indeed, Debian's situation seems closer to ours.
+> > > 
+> > > However, a bit more investigation shows that the Debian policy "no
+> > > enforced patents" is not really a written policy and what it means in
+> > > practice is not 100% clear. A clarification request [1] has gone
+> > > unanswered for 1.5 years, and "missing" packages x264,lame,xvidcore
+> > > are sitting in the NEW queue [2] without having been accepted or
+> > > rejected yet (it has "only" been 2.5 months, though).
+> > > 
+> > > 
+> > > BTW, other related 'missing' packages in debian are "mjpegtools",
+> > > "faac", "transcode", but the first two are missing due to license
+> > > reasons instead of patent issues:
+> > > 
+> > > mjpegtools contains source files that are "All Rights Reserved" by
+> > > "MPEG/audio software simulation group" (Ubuntu has the package in
+> > > multiverse, Mandriva in main)
+> > > 
+> > > faac contains a limitation that it is not allowed to be used in
+> > > software not conforming to MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio standards, which makes
+> > > it non-opensource (Ubuntu has the package in multiverse, Mandriva
+> > > doesn't have it).
+> > > 
+> > > transcode is missing, but there's been no recent activity on it that
+> > > would explain why it isn't there (IIRC its supported codecs are a
+> > > subset of ffmpeg ones, and ffmpeg is in Debian).
+> > > 
+> > > 
+> > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522373
+> > > (note that debian had some encoders disabled in ffmpeg at the time of
+> > > the above report; those have since been enabled)
+> > > [2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
+> > 
+> > Questions about patents is related to which law applies to Mageia. No
+> > answers to which law then no clear policy can be applied.
+> > 
+> > For me, since Mageia.org will lead the project (and will own Mageia
+> > trademarks) is located in France, since build system of Mageia will be in
+> > France
+> 
+> There is no guarantee that the BS will always be located in France. So I
+> think you should not make assumptions like this.
+> 
+> > then French law is the law we have to consider for Mageia. Debian runs
+> > under SPI organization located in the state of New York, USA, thus is
+> > ruled by US Laws.
+> 
+> Since the only people who will have issue with this are the president ( aka
+> Anne ) and the people who distribute this ( ie mirrors admins ), I think
+> we should ask them and follow their opinions, and only theirs. Because
+> we can speak of "we have no problem", we will have nothing what ever we do,
+> because we are likely not liable. Anne and mirrors owners are. So their
+> words is what does count.
+
+So is Mageia a community project or not ?
+Then when we will talk about Marketing stuff we will follow only marketing 
+group opinions ?
+
+Of course their views count, but there is a difference between the 
+responsability of Mageia association that must comply with French Laws and 
+mirrors admins that must comply with the laws of the country the mirror is 
+located. OpenBSD project is located in Canada to avoid some US law about 
+restriction for export (meanwhile for example Red Hat has a policy for its 
+employees not to answer by IRC to demand from an user located in countries 
+that are under export restriction due to US law)
+
+If the structure of the repos need to be adapted so one part can be not 
+mirrored in certain countries that could be a solution (let's call it export-
+restriction)
+
+I do quite accept that Fedora, OpenSuse, Debian comply with US Law since there 
+are located in the USA, thus accepting their policy about software patents. I 
+would like that the same occurs for Mageia that is located in France.
+
+Olivier
+