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

Fri Jul 8 05:14:52 CEST 2011

Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
+> 2011/7/8 andre999<andr55 at laposte.net>:
+>> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
+>>>
+>>> 2011/7/7 nicolas vigier<boklm at mars-attacks.org>:
+>>>>
+>>>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
+>>>>
+>>>>> 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.
+>>>>
+>>>> Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software
+>>>> can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented.
+>>>
+>>> Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace "restrictive
+>>> license" with "patents" in my sentence.
+>>
+>> "free" means that it can be redistributed with source code, with a free/open
+>> source license.
+>> "non-free" (in terms of the repos) means that it can be redistributed, but
+>> either not with source code, according to the license + or we simply don't
+>> have/can't get the source code.
+>> "tainted" was mostly for packages affected to some extent by tainted
+>> patents.
+>> Such packages could be free or non-free, that has nothing to do with being
+>> in "tainted".
+>> Some discussions in the past considered that the likelihood of a patent
+>> impacting a particular software (in the few countries that do accept
+>> software packages to some extent, like the USA), should affect whether it
+>> goes into tainted or not.  I don't know what consensus there was on this
+>> point, if any.
+>
+> That exactly was the reason why "tainted" was created. The gathering
+> of such software in one repo to make it easy for users and mirror
+> maintainers in those countries to avoid them if they chose (or are
+> forced) to do so.
+
+Since as far as I know, nobody introduced any evidence during the debate of any 
+mirror being pursued for carrying potentially patent-affected packages, despite 
+the fact that many mirrors in the USA, for example, carry such packages, any 
+problem for mirrors is a moot point.
+
+However users (or mirrors) that wish to respect patent claims would evidently 
+appreciate avoiding the contents of a "tainted" repository.
+
+Remember that very few patent claims against software are ever validated by the 
+courts.  Most pursuits in the USA are against companies with very deep pockets, 
+which are often settled out of court for convenience.  Generally in these 
+cases, the defending party is earning revenues from the subject of the patent 
+claim.  Which of course doesn't apply to software distributed for free by mirrors.
+(e.g., if I remember correctly, Novell paid license fees to Microsoft for 
+patent claims, while other companies successfully contested the same claims in 
+court.)
+
+-- 
+André
+