[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

Sat Nov 27 10:03:53 CET 2010

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:51:59AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
+> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes
+> <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com> wrote:
+> > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund:
+> > [...]
+> >> > A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However, i do
+> >> > understand that some people would not want to install firmware, but i
+> >> > think we should do this in another way, (like installing a meta package
+> >> > that enforces some limits.)
+> >> > codecs seem odd to be separate, if they have patented problems they
+> >> > should go in non_free, if no problem, they can go in core.
+> >>
+> >> That is doable.
+> >> The reason for having it separate was because its the most "problematic"
+> >> one. (codecs have more issues than firmware)
+> >
+> > What i meant here, is why is firmware separate from core? why is codecs
+> > separate from core?
+> >
+> > imo, i would put firmware and codecs in either core or non_free.
+> 
+> I guess we should separate concerns?
+>  - non_free as in "not (really) free software" (source code may be
+> available, but license, redistribution conditions, etc.)
+>  - problematic stuff as in "binary closed thing" (most firmware, but
+> not only eventually)
+
+Well, "binary closed thing" mean "source code may be available, but not for anybody
+outside the company". It look like a lot like "source code may be
+available, but license, redistribution conditions" , with redistribution conditions
+mean "no unless you are the shareholder board" .
+So they are the same thing, ie non_free.
+
+>  - problematic stuff as in "(likely) patented" (some codecs)
+
+Patented and likely enforced. There is some patents on WebM, since google bought
+ON2, but they gave a patent promise. The same could go for invalid patents, where there
+is clear prior art, like http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/11/patent-madness-by-tandberg/ .
+
+We could also speak of Java, and the claims from Oracle ( 
+http://www.betanews.com/article/This-is-big-Oracle-claims-Android-violates-its-Java-patents-sues-Google/1281675545 ),
+which would be quite broad, http://www.google.com/patents?id=dyQGAAAAEBAJ for example seems either invalid, or very similar
+to selinux and traditional unix permissions, the sae goes for http://www.google.com/patents?id=G1YGAAAAEBAJ .
+
+So codecs definitly doesn't sound like the proper name if we may end putting the whole java stack there.
+( since there is patents, and since they are clearly enforced, and since openjdk is free software (=> ! non_free ) ).
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+