[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

Sat Nov 27 13:47:03 CET 2010

Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 10:03:53 schreef Michael scherer:
+> 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 ) ).
+
+
+so, you're agreeing with me then. there is no need for codecs or firmware 
+repositories?
+