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

Tue Jul 12 11:16:24 CEST 2011

2011/7/12 andre999 <andr55 at laposte.net>:
+> 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 ?
+
+Sorry, but I do not understand your way of thinking. If a law exists
+it exists. It does not matter to a law whether it is likely to be
+enforced. Period.
+This is not paranoia, it is a matter of mind set. If robbery would not
+be prosecuted, would you go out and earn your doe by taking away
+handbags from old ladies? You would not, because it is wrong. For
+those who are living in countries where patents are valid and accepted
+by the law, using a patented software is wrong. So you must accept
+that there are people who would not do it. Telling them how they
+should think about it is not ours. That's why we have the tainted
+repo.
+
+-- 
+wobo
+