1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Mageia%20repository%20sections%2C%20licenses%2C%20restrictions%2C%0A%09firmware%20etc&In-Reply-To=%3C201010150743.34299.omejean%40yahoo.fr%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="001209.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="001215.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc</H1>
<B>Olivier Méjean</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Mageia%20repository%20sections%2C%20licenses%2C%20restrictions%2C%0A%09firmware%20etc&In-Reply-To=%3C201010150743.34299.omejean%40yahoo.fr%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc">omejean at yahoo.fr
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Oct 15 07:43:34 CEST 2010</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001209.html">[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001215.html">[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1214">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1214">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1214">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1214">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le vendredi 15 octobre 2010 01:18:37, Michael scherer a écrit :
><i> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0200, Olivier Méjean wrote:
</I>><i> > Le jeudi 14 octobre 2010 20:55:01, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
</I>><i> > > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:22:01 Michael Scherer wrote:
</I>><i> > > > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
</I>><i> > > > > Hi all!
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media
</I>><i> > > > > sectioning we should use on Mageia, and what should those sections
</I>><i> > > > > contain?
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in
</I>><i> > > > > this post, only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I
</I>><i> > > > > have one):
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > == Do we want a separated core repository?
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
</I>><i> > > > > Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)
</I>><i> > > >
</I>><i> > > > How do we decide what would be in core ?
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > AFAICS the only reasonable reason would be to separate 'supported' and
</I>><i> > > 'unsupported' packages (whatever the definition we will choose for
</I>><i> > > those).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > What is a supported package or what is an unsupported package ?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > For Mandriva it was clear, packages on which Mandriva provides support is
</I>><i> > in main, if not it's in contrib.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> No, since there was unsupported packages in main ( think stuff like
</I>><i> ld.so1.2 ), and support could perfectly answer to questions depending on
</I>><i> the contract, even on packages in contribs.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> There is also weird stuff like php-yp ( in contrib ), who was built from
</I>><i> the same source than others php packages, who was thus in main and
</I>><i> supported.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> No to mention that there was no process for deciding what goes in main,
</I>><i> except that it was required by something else in main. There is also
</I>><i> issues of old packages that were never moved out of main, despites not
</I>><i> really supported.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So no, it was not clear.
</I>
<A HREF="http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia">http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia</A>
It seems clear that distinction of main and contrib was just related to
Mandriva wishes.
><i>
</I>><i> > > > > == What about patents?
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > Almost no software with patents: Fedora, Opensuse
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > - Essentially no media codecs except theora/vorbis/ogg/vp8 etc.
</I>><i> > > > > - Strange exception: libXft, Cairo and Qt4 are shipped with LCD
</I>><i> > > > > filtering
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > support enabled, even if it is disabled in freetype
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > No software with enforced patents: Debian
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > - not included (at least): x264 (encoder), lame mp3 (encoder)
</I>><i> > > > > - included (at least): MPEG/x decoders, H.264 decoders, MP3
</I>><i> > > > > decoders,
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > AAC decoders, AMR decoders, DTS decoders, AC3 decoders,
</I>><i> > > > > WMV/WMA decoders, realvideo decoders, etc
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > Some software covered by patents not included: Mandriva
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > - see below for more information
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > All software covered by patents allowed: Arch, Ubuntu
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > IMO we should alter our policy to match either Fedora, Debian or
</I>><i> > > > > Ubuntu.. The Mandriva policy makes no sense (for example, no AAC
</I>><i> > > > > decoder but yes for H.264 decoder and MPEG-4 encoder?).
</I>><i> > > > > I'm really not sure which way we should go, though. WDYT?
</I>><i> > > >
</I>><i> > > > I would go the Debian way.
</I>><i> > > > Ubuntu and Fedora are tied to companies, and Debian is not, so their
</I>><i> > > > policies are likely more adapted to our own model.
</I>><i> > > >
</I>><i> > > > Debian way seems to be more pragmatic that Ubuntu/Fedora on that
</I>><i> > > > matter.
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > Indeed, Debian's situation seems closer to ours.
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > However, a bit more investigation shows that the Debian policy "no
</I>><i> > > enforced patents" is not really a written policy and what it means in
</I>><i> > > practice is not 100% clear. A clarification request [1] has gone
</I>><i> > > unanswered for 1.5 years, and "missing" packages x264,lame,xvidcore
</I>><i> > > are sitting in the NEW queue [2] without having been accepted or
</I>><i> > > rejected yet (it has "only" been 2.5 months, though).
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > BTW, other related 'missing' packages in debian are "mjpegtools",
</I>><i> > > "faac", "transcode", but the first two are missing due to license
</I>><i> > > reasons instead of patent issues:
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > mjpegtools contains source files that are "All Rights Reserved" by
</I>><i> > > "MPEG/audio software simulation group" (Ubuntu has the package in
</I>><i> > > multiverse, Mandriva in main)
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > faac contains a limitation that it is not allowed to be used in
</I>><i> > > software not conforming to MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio standards, which makes
</I>><i> > > it non-opensource (Ubuntu has the package in multiverse, Mandriva
</I>><i> > > doesn't have it).
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > transcode is missing, but there's been no recent activity on it that
</I>><i> > > would explain why it isn't there (IIRC its supported codecs are a
</I>><i> > > subset of ffmpeg ones, and ffmpeg is in Debian).
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > [1] <A HREF="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522373">http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522373</A>
</I>><i> > > (note that debian had some encoders disabled in ffmpeg at the time of
</I>><i> > > the above report; those have since been enabled)
</I>><i> > > [2] <A HREF="http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html">http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html</A>
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Questions about patents is related to which law applies to Mageia. No
</I>><i> > answers to which law then no clear policy can be applied.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > For me, since Mageia.org will lead the project (and will own Mageia
</I>><i> > trademarks) is located in France, since build system of Mageia will be in
</I>><i> > France
</I>><i>
</I>><i> There is no guarantee that the BS will always be located in France. So I
</I>><i> think you should not make assumptions like this.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > then French law is the law we have to consider for Mageia. Debian runs
</I>><i> > under SPI organization located in the state of New York, USA, thus is
</I>><i> > ruled by US Laws.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Since the only people who will have issue with this are the president ( aka
</I>><i> Anne ) and the people who distribute this ( ie mirrors admins ), I think
</I>><i> we should ask them and follow their opinions, and only theirs. Because
</I>><i> we can speak of "we have no problem", we will have nothing what ever we do,
</I>><i> because we are likely not liable. Anne and mirrors owners are. So their
</I>><i> words is what does count.
</I>
So is Mageia a community project or not ?
Then when we will talk about Marketing stuff we will follow only marketing
group opinions ?
Of course their views count, but there is a difference between the
responsability of Mageia association that must comply with French Laws and
mirrors admins that must comply with the laws of the country the mirror is
located. OpenBSD project is located in Canada to avoid some US law about
restriction for export (meanwhile for example Red Hat has a policy for its
employees not to answer by IRC to demand from an user located in countries
that are under export restriction due to US law)
If the structure of the repos need to be adapted so one part can be not
mirrored in certain countries that could be a solution (let's call it export-
restriction)
I do quite accept that Fedora, OpenSuse, Debian comply with US Law since there
are located in the USA, thus accepting their policy about software patents. I
would like that the same occurs for Mageia that is located in France.
Olivier
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001209.html">[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001215.html">[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1214">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1214">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1214">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1214">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
