[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

Tue Oct 30 03:40:08 CET 2012

andre999 a écrit :
+> Christiaan Welvaart a écrit :
+>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
+>>
+>>> Nice to see that everyone went back to Start with this discussion,
+>>> almost using the same words in their arguments. Is this really needed?
+>>>
+>>> There has been a wide consensus for the solution to put it into
+>>> tainted as has been said in this thread as well. There are 2 options
+>>
+>> Each package in non-free must be inspected case-by-case to know if it
+>> can be distributed/used, but their licenses are valid world-wide
+>> (because copyright is pretty much universally accepted). The packages in
+>> tainted can all be used/distributed *if* patents on software are not
+>> considered valid in the country where the user/mirror resides. Do you
+>> really want to mix those two?
+> 
+> Don't quite follow the logic, but maybe I misunderstand your point.
+> 
+> A package qualifies for nonfree if it is not open source (for whatever
+> reason) and there are no restrictions on its' redistribution, world-wide.
+> All official mirrors are required to carry nonfree repos, as well as core.
+> 
+> If there is some constraint on the redistribution of a package in some
+> countries, such as patent claims or encryption technology used or
+> whatever, mirrors in affected countries may reasonably want to avoid
+> carrying such packages.
+> For this reason, we created the "tainted" repos, which are optional for
+> official mirrors.
+> However we added the additional restriction that packages in tainted
+> must also be open source, to satisfy those that don't want to install
+> non-free packages.
+> 
+> If we want to continue this additional restriction, we would have to
+> create another set of repos for packages that are both constrained
+> (tainted) and non-free, in order to carry such packages.
+> However there are very few packages that meet this restriction.  Also
+> the tainted repos contain relatively few packages, compared with core
+> and nonfree.
+> 
+> We could have used another approach.
+> We could use a tag in the package name, or some other method, to clearly
+> indicate that the package in question is non-free.
+> Thus making it easier for those who wish to avoid non-free at all costs,
+> to avoid installing non-free packages in the tainted repo.
+> (But it still wouldn't remove non-free parts of the kernel.)
+
+
+> 
+> Note that packages in the tainted repos aren't distributed on iso, so
+> that a user wanting tainted packages would have to download such
+> packages from the net.  And thus such a user could even avoid having
+> (uninstalled) tainted non-free packages on their computer.
+
+
+> 
+> In sum, I agree with the proposal of this thread to allow non-free
+> packages in tainted repos.
+> 
+The problem :
+In Tainted repo we can find now vlc-tainted, gstreamer-tainted,
+mencoder-tainted... they are free indeed (because built without faac)
+
+but what to do if we want to build them with faac : they are always
+tainted but become non-free too !
+
+For instance, with vlc (it's the same for mplayer or others) :
+
+1) is it possible to have two versions of the same package in the same
+repo ?
+a vlc-free-tainted one (built with mp3 codec without faac) for strict
+opensource users
+and a vlc-nonfree-tainted one (built with mp3 decoder with faac) for
+ordinary users, with an information for strict opensource users to avoid it
+
+2) or must we choose one version ... and then who will be satisfied
+only vlc-free-tainted (strict opensource users will be happy but other
+ordinary users can't work on aac files)
+only vlc-nonfree-tainted (everybody is happy except the strict
+opensource users that can no more even hear mp3 files with vlc...)
+
+If we can't satisfy everybody, we have to choose who must be satisfied,
+and why !...
+
+
+>>
+>>      Christiaan
+>>
+> 
+
+
+