[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?

Thu Jul 7 05:59:26 CEST 2011

2011/7/7 andre999 <andr55 at laposte.net>:
+> Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+>>
+>> On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
+>>>
+>>> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny<rdalverny at gmail.com>  wrote:
+>>>>
+>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir<ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com>
+>>>>  wrote:
+>>>>>
+>>>>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny<rdalverny at gmail.com>  wrote:
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath<molch.b at googlemail.com>
+>>>>>>  wrote:
+>>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
+>>>>>>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
+>>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
+>>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
+>>>>>>> licensing) will go into tainted.
+>>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> That's all. Clear and simple.
+>>>>>>>
+>>>>>>> The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by
+>>>>>>> tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go
+>>>>>>> to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status.
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> Indeed.
+>>>>>> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses
+>>>>>> says:
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be
+>>>>>> free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in
+>>>>>> certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues."
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe:
+>>>>>>  - "core" hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere
+>>>>>> (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that)
+>>>>>>  - "nonfree" hosts non-free software that can be redistributed
+>>>>>> anywhere (same)
+>>>>>>  - "tainted" hosts all the rest, be it free software or not.
+>>>>>
+>>>>> Third point is wrong, "a license that is might be free or open
+>>>>> source", which, I think, means only software with an open source
+>>>>> software License.
+>>>>
+>>>> I understand this as: software that might be free or open source =>
+>>>> can be not free or open source. "might" expressed the possibility, not
+>>>> the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free
+>>>> software.
+>>>
+>>> It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the
+>>> tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in
+>>> tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to
+>>> express our stance on the issue in a clearer way...
+>>
+>> I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to
+>> me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere).
+>>
+>> There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in
+>> tainted, though.
+>
+> This discussion reminds me of the recent Oracle claims of patent
+> infringement against Google, over Google's use of Java in Android.
+> These patents were all issued by the US patent office.
+> Google referred about 100 of these claims to the patent office for
+> evaluation.
+> The patent office invalidated all but 17.
+> And these 17 may yet be invalidated by the courts.
+>
+> Google has not yet referred many other of the patent claims for examination
+> by the patent office.
+>
+> So patent claims only _potentially_ result in legal problems. (As well as
+> only in a few countries.)
+
+"potentially" and "only in a few countries" are not valid arguments -
+especially for those who live in such countries.
+
+> Which makes me think that the free/non-free distinction is probably much
+> more important.
+
+I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
+am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
+non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in
+tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has
+it is not free and goes in tainted.
+
+-- 
+wobo
+