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

Thu Jul 7 07:11:03 CEST 2011

On 6 July 2011 21:54, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula at iki.fi> wrote:
+> 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.
+>
+> --
+> Anssi Hannula
+>
+
+Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth; What I meant was, the
+current policy, from what I understood (and what you said in the
+thread about handbrake, and in the faac package request bug report)
+said tainted doesn't have nonfree software.
+
+I am not opposed to getting faac in the repos, but things should be
+clear about what goes where, IINM one thing we all agreed on was that
+there was no consistency about the enabled codecs in mdv, and that
+since we're starting afresh things should be clear.
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+