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

Tue Jul 12 22:48:58 CEST 2011

Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
+> 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.
+
+True.  But patents have nothing to do with enforcing laws.
+
+> 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.
+
+In my mind, this argument misses the concept of software patents.
+Firstly, patents are not laws.  They are civil rights granted in exchange for 
+encouraging innovation.
+However patents on software are granted without ensuring that the patents are 
+valid.  (At least in the USA.)  There is only a check on conflicts with other 
+patents.  This is easy to understand, as validating patents on software is 
+quasi-impossible without considerable time and expense.  Which is probably why 
+most countries do not accept software patents.
+
+Software patents in fact discourage innovation, going against the basic 
+justification of patents.
+In practice, virtually all software patents in the USA are found to be invalid, 
+when contested in the courts.  Usually a form of costly legal harcelling is 
+used to extract royalties, from companies with deep pockets.
+
+Note that patents are nothing more than a civil right, akin to trespassing.
+So if someone walks up your sidewalk to knock on your door, would you accuse 
+them of trespassing ?  I doubt it.
+And I don't think that I would want to have such a neighbour.
+A patent holder is not required to procecute, and in certain cases _not_ 
+procecuting is very much in the interest of the patent holder.
+Such as distributors of open source source software, who will tend to spread 
+the use of the particular functionality referred to by the patent.
+
+For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to be 
+approached by the patent holder.
+(If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
+And if that means that our constrained ("tainted") repos are almost empty, 
+wouldn't that simplify things ?
+
+---
+I noticed that all packages in "tainted" contain ".tainted." in the name.
+rsync permits adding the option
+--exclude '.tainted.'
+to permit excluding such packages if a mirror wants to.
+
+So we could eliminate the "tainted" repos, to facilitate putting packages in 
+core or non-free as appropriate.
+There may have to be a few adjustments to show (or not) the packages tagged 
+"tainted", but that shouldn't be difficult.
+Wouldn't that be easier ?
+
+(At the same time, we could choose a name that doesn't indicate that there is 
+something intrinsically wrong with the package.)
+
+Regards :)
+-- 
+André
+