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

Tue Mar 15 17:33:11 CET 2011

Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 16:13 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
+> 
+> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 11:28
+> 
+> > > amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
+> > > amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
+> > 
+> > This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the
+> > tarball,
+> > as this download the code from the internet at compile time. The
+> > resulting code is IMHO non-free. 
+> 
+> If you look closer you will find that the source rpm actually contains the
+> zip file with the code that is supposed to be downloaded. It also contains
+> a .doc that apparently is not distributable.
+
+Then that's a bug that should be reported, as I said. 
+
+> > I would suggest to drop it and to use
+> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencore-amr/ ,
+> > which is more cleanly licensed ( Apache license ). 
+> 
+> Is opencore-amr a drop-in replacement for amrnb/amrwb for ALL packages that
+> depend on it?
+> A quick google search didn't turn up a lot, only that apparently gstreamer
+> and ffmpeg can make use of opencore-amr.
+> 
+> Is the audio quality comparable?
+
+I do not think the audio quality is what matter for the usage of AMR.
+People that want a good audio quality will not take this codec as this
+is sampled at 8kHz, and it is basically unused outside of phones,
+patented, costly and standardized by 3GPP.
+
+For the only uses I can see for the codec, aka reading voice recorded
+file from a phone, anything would work. And for people that want to
+record ringtones, if the phone only support AMR, again, the quality is
+not a issue, because that's likely a old phone with crappy speakers.
+
+> I couldn't find any indication of that, but gstreamer has put opencore-amr
+> into the ugly plugins, rather than bad where amrnb/amrwb are, I don't know
+> if that's an indication of worse quality.
+
+The wikipedia page of gstreamer
+( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GStreamer ) explain everything you want
+to know :
+
+"This package contains plug-ins from the "ugly" set, a set of
+good-quality plug-ins that might pose distribution problems.[14]"
+
+So that's likely the contrary.
+
+> With regards to facc there is no equivalent replacement for it and it's
+> used by by a few projects so definitely can't be dropped.
+
+Almost anything can be dropped.
+
+I am not sure that the mix of LGPL and the specific license found in the
+tarball is legit, and so I think we should drop it until things are
+clearer.
+
+Faac is just the encoder part. Sure, this will annoy some people, but we
+are not the one asking for money to be able to use a product, nor the
+one restricting others. 
+
+If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors
+that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles.
+
+> Also while the faac license is non-free, it's not a problem to distribute
+> it, so the only problem we have is to decide where to put it (keeping in
+> mind where packages that depend on it will go too).
+
+If this is non-free, it goes to non-free, that's all. And we link
+nothing to it outside of non-free. 
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+