[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout

Mon Dec 13 11:46:11 CET 2010

Daniel Kreuter a écrit :
+>
+>
+> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. <ewilcox at bex.net
+> <mailto:ewilcox at bex.net>> wrote:
+>
+>
+>     As I see it, we already have a usable mirror lay-out (posted earlier
+>     in this
+>     thread). The only real discussion that should remain is whether to
+>     include the
+>     "tainted" branch in the official Mageia tree, or to offer it in an
+>     alternate
+>     repository such as PLF (my earlier suggestion).
+>
+>     --
+>     Ernest N. Wilcox Jr.
+>     Registered Linux User 247790
+>     ICQ 41060744
+>
+>
+> Good point. I would suggest that (with permission like you mentioned) we
+> include only such patented software in the main repos like drivers. And
+> everything else like mp3 in the tainted.
+>
+> Especially network-drivers should be included, nothing is worse than
+> looking for the drivers if you have no network (as I always have to do
+> in Debian).
+
+Generally drivers have permission to distribute, but not to modify or 
+reverse engineer, and source code is rarely available.
+Mandriva does include network drivers.  But a lot of other commonly used 
+drivers aren't on the "free" ISOs.  I think they should be in all the 
+ISOs.  Whatever their licence, with the core packages.
+So that is one area where Mageia can improve on Mandriva.
+
+> --
+> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
+>
+> Greetings
+>
+> Daniel Kreuter
+
+Please note that both Ubuntu and Debian carry patented-constrained 
+software.   (Debian officially in their "non-free" repositories.)
+Both have many mirrors in the U.S.
+
+To say that carrying software that may present patent infringement is 
+illegal is grossly simplefying the issue.
+Only if a court decides that a patent is legitimate, and that a 
+particular software really infringes on that patent, without permission 
+(direct or indirect or implicitly) of the patent holder, does that 
+software contravene the civil rights of the patent holder.  Most 
+patents, even if pursued, never reach that stage.
+
+Note that the patent holder is always free to not pursue apparent patent 
+violators, thus giving implicit permission.  In case of open source 
+projects, they could decide that it is more in their interests to not 
+pursue those who would not be in a position to pay royalties, so as to 
+not discourage the use of their technology, and thus encourage the 
+development of viable alternatives.
+Which could lead to those currently (or potentially in the future) 
+paying royalties deciding to switch to these patent (and royalty) free 
+alternatives.
+
+Copyright infringement is generally much easier to determine, making it 
+both easier to avoid, as well as easier to prove.
+So a policy of insisting on permission to redistribute for copyrightable 
+material seems appropriate.
+
+Such an approach for potentially patent-infringing material is virtually 
+impossible.
+(Just think of the bogus Linux kernel case a few years back.)
+(Or Microsoft's patent on certain essential elements of a spreadsheet.)
+
+So in my mind we should wait until until approached by the patent holder 
+about a particular package before considering designating the package as 
+patent-constrained.
+
+Initially, I don't see us needing a set of repositories for contrained 
+(or "tainted") packages.
+
+But I do see PLF as a reasonable place for packages we choose not to carry.
+They have a open invitation to host constrained packages for any 
+distribution, as long as packagers volonteer.)
+Mageia doesn't necessarily have to be (but could be) involved.  I'm sure 
+there will be volonteers, whatever we decide.
+
+my 2 cents :)
+
+- André
+