[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

Tue Oct 30 09:30:08 CET 2012

Johnny A. Solbu a écrit :
+> On Tuesday 30 October 2012 02:44, andre999 wrote:
+>> 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.
+>
+> The problem of including nonfree spftware in tainted, is that it no longer is a Free software repo in countries that don't accept software patents.
+
+So how is that a problem ?
+Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head to say that they have to 
+install a package just because it is in tainted.
+Nobody can install all packages in core, nor all packages in nonfree.
+Maybe one could install all packages in tainted (as there are not very 
+many), but it is normal to be selective in installing packages.
+
+Would it help if a user could set a configuration to automatically 
+control the installation of non-free packages.
+Something like "never", "confirm each time", or "always", similar to 
+what has been proposed for isos ?
+Don't forget that packages in the tainted repo have to be downloaded 
+from the net, unlike packages in core or nonfree, which could be on an 
+iso.  So having an additional control, and using the "never" option 
+would eliminate any chance of installing a non-free package from tainted.
+Wouldn't that work for you ?
+
+>
+> Nonfree software belongs in a nonfree tree. If we need to create a new repo for them, so be it. That is the right thing to do.
+> No one said that the right thing to do would be easy. :-)=
+>
+>> However there are very few packages that meet this restriction.  Also
+>> the tainted repos contain relatively few packages, compared with core
+>> and nonfree.
+>
+> What has that got to do with anything?
+> Either a package is Free and open source software,  or it is not. wether it belongs in the majority or a tiny minority is not the issue.
+> The issue at stake is our Freedom.
+
+Good point.
+I think that we can all agree that all users have the freedom to not 
+install specific packages.
+What many are asking is the freedom to readily access certain tainted + 
+non-free packages, while others are worried about the overhead that an 
+additional repo will bring for a relatively small number of packages.
+So one possible compromise is putting all constrained packages in the 
+tainted repos.
+
+>
+> I happens to live in a country where the packages in tainted is Free software in every sense of the word. And I don't believe that I'm the only one that is.
+> Tainted is a convenience for those that live in a country that have software patents, not the otherway around. Don't clutter the water for those of us where tainted still is a Free software repo.
+>
+Firstly, software patents is only one factor that could put a package in 
+tainted.  If you live in a NATO country, certain encryption software was 
+restricted in the past, and some may still be.  So some software in 
+tainted may be constrained in your country.
+My suggestion above for additional configuration options that would 
+allow automatically ignoring non-free packages in tainted would solve 
+your problem in practical terms, as well as solving the problem of freer 
+access to certain software for other users.
+Note that I'm not likely to use such packages.  I'm essentially a 
+bystander looking for a reasonable solution.
+
+-- 
+André
+