[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout

Sat Dec 11 15:31:12 CET 2010

Michael scherer a écrit :
+>
+> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:52:16AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
+>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:42, Michael scherer<misc at zarb.org>  wrote:
+>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:26:32PM -0500, andre999 wrote:
+>>>> Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
+>>>
+>>>>>   - for packaging/shipping the distribution
+>>>>
+>>>> Evidently easier to package.  (One less consideration.)
+>>>> As well, the problem doesn't exist in France, so Mageia itself won't
+>>>> be a target.
+>>>
+>>> This is a over simplification.
+>>> PLF is not only for patented softwares, but also for softwares that
+>>> have others issues ( DMCA, copyright claim, etc ).
+>>> So from a packaging point of view, we would still
+>>> have a separate repository, so the consideration would
+>>> likely still exist.
+>>
+>> Indeed. But it then shows that it really makes sense to separate
+>> issues per packaging media (so that end-users may decide on a
+>> case-by-case basis), provided each issue is not valid worldwide,
+>> neither uniformely.
+>>
+> PLF has a policy ( enforced by a rpmlint module and a check at upload, iirc )
+> of explaining why a package is in plf, and let user decide.
+>
+> I think that is is quite important to know why a package is in such repositories,
+> and later, once we have a better view of what are the exact requirements of mirrors,
+> and if this is worth, we can find a more granular system ( ie, filtering for just
+> 2 mirrors when we will already have many others do not seem like a wise idea ).
+>
+> And so basically, we have 2 groups :
+> Users and mirrors.
+> We push the responsability to users to decide what they want to install.
+> And for mirrors, we provide them with a simple system to decide. People
+> who do not care do not care. People who care would likely not spend
+> days checking every packages.
+
+Sounds reasonable.
+
+As for the mirrors, I would say the best thing to do is use PLF for 
+constrained packages, with their accompanying explanations.
+
+But I would be very conservative about putting patent-constrained 
+software in such a repository.
+Why ?  Firstly, the risk has been shown to be largely hypothetical.
+It is the companies that make a profit by selling patent-constrained 
+software that are pursued.
+Besides the potential of monetory benefit from this practice, I think 
+that there is another factor involved.  The companies want these patents 
+to be used, in order to collect royalties.  They know that non-profit 
+distributions will not lead to royalties.  But at the same time, the 
+fact that their patents are used by such distributions increases the 
+prevalence of the usage, thus tends to limit the development of 
+alternate technologies.  The last thing they want is a viable free 
+alternative to become widely available, as then profit-making royalty 
+payers will have a less expensive alternative.
+So as contradictory as it may seem, it is in the interest of patent 
+holders to avoid discouraging open source software from using their 
+patents for free.
+
+For this reason, I would favour waiting until we (or our mirrors) are 
+actually approached regarding a particular patent before considering 
+removing a package from regular repositories for patent reasons.
+
+>> Putting everything under a "tainted" repository will just push the
+>> problem one step aside. Putting issues separately helps having a clear
+>> policy, per type of issue (because the problem is different).
+>
+> Either we have 1 repository, or we have more.
+
+I think that one PLF repository for constrained packages, with 
+explanations of why it is there, could be a reasonable compromise.
+(Most but not all PLF packages carry an explanation.)
+Some things in PLF should definitely be excluded from Mageia, such as 
+copyrighted material without permission to distribute.
+
+> 1 per global type of issue do not seem useful. For example, patents
+> are per country ( or group of country ), despites some efforts to global
+> harmonisation. The same apply to local laws ( DMCA, etc ). So saying
+> "everything patents related go there" do not help much, neither mirrors or
+> users.
+
+As I explained above, I think we should not separate patent-constrained 
+software until we are approached by the patenting party in question.
+This will help minimize (and maybe eliminate) the need for a set of 
+constrained repositories.
+
+And have the side effect of simplifying our process, by avoiding dealing 
+with the ambiguity of deciding what should be treated as 
+patent-constrainted software.
+
+> ...
+
+- André
+