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

Tue Jul 12 03:41:30 CEST 2011

Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
+> 2011/7/9 andre999<andr55 at laposte.net>:
+>> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
+>>>
+>>> 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil<tvl83 at gmx.de>:
+>>>>
+>>>> Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
+>>>>>
+>>>>> 2011/7/8 James Kerr<jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
+>>>>>> re-stated as:
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled
+>>>>>> in a
+>>>>>> single tainted repository?
+>>>>>
+>>>>> How can tainted software be free software at the same time?
+>>>>>
+>>>>
+>>>> Because free is a matter of license, while tainted is a matter of
+>>>> patents.
+>>>> For example, the libdvdcss2 is free, as the the source-code is open (GPL)
+>>>> but it touches the patent issue, so it's tainted.
+>>>
+>>> Yes, if you regard patents not as a criterium for free or non-free
+>>> then this division makes sense.
+>>>>
+>>>>  From that point of view we need the same structure as PLF
+>>>
+>>> (tainted-free and tainted-non-free).
+>>
+>> As well, the question of patent claims is a totally hypothetical problem, in
+>> almost every country -- including the USA -- for mirrors that carry distros
+>> like Mageia.
+>> (In the USA, the patent office used to systematically refuse patent claims
+>> on software.  And patents are only examined for conflicting US patents
+>> before being registered.  Not for the acceptability of the patent itself.)
+>>
+>> So basically, tainted is for the benefit of those who would like to support
+>> software patents.
+>
+> You say that people who obey to the laws of their country are to blame
+> for obeying these laws? That's ridiculous.
+
+It is not at all a question of obeying laws.
+A patent is granted to give certain civil rights on the part of the patent 
+holder, for original developments, that are not obvious from existing 
+knowledge.  The idea is to encourage innovation by protecting the investments 
+made by innovators.
+Because patents are granted essentially on the basis of not conflicting with 
+other patents (especially software patents), there is no assurance that a 
+patent is valid at all.  Patents on software are particularly problematic, as 
+software is based on logic, and what is obvious from existing knowledge is not 
+necessarily apparent to those not in the computer field.  It most countries 
+such patents are denied.
+In the USA, patents on software are (at least sometimes) accepted, most patent 
+claims are not supported by the courts.  In other words, they are not valid.
+If you had read the reference, you should have understood that.
+
+> The fact that nobody (in FOSS community) has been called to court yet
+> does not mean that the related laws do not exist!
+> The Debian paper (Romain linked to) has an answer to the reasons.
+
+Which clearly indicates that the risk is minimal in the countries where such a 
+risk exists.  According to the report, no cases to date against FOSS software, 
+distributed by non-commercial entities.  Basically my point.
+It also warns against paranoia about patents.
+This paranoia seems to me a bit like never crossing a street because one might 
+get run over by a bus.  Even if one crosses in a marked crosswalk.
+
+> Besides, tainted is not only about patents, it's also about software
+> which is illegal in certain countries (like libdvdcss).
+
+Ok, a relatively limited application.
+
+So in all, maybe a handful of packages at most should be in tainted.
+So why do we have more than 150 ?
+
+-- 
+André
+