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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Mirror%20layout%2C%20round%20two&In-Reply-To=%3C201011271347.03086.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="001453.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="001441.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two</H1>
<B>Maarten Vanraes</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Mirror%20layout%2C%20round%20two&In-Reply-To=%3C201011271347.03086.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two">maarten.vanraes at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Nov 27 13:47:03 CET 2010</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001453.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001441.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1457">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1457">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1457">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1457">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 10:03:53 schreef Michael scherer:
><i> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:51:59AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
</I>><i> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">maarten.vanraes at gmail.com</A>> wrote:
</I>><i> > > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund:
</I>><i> > > [...]
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > >> > A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However,
</I>><i> > >> > i do understand that some people would not want to install
</I>><i> > >> > firmware, but i think we should do this in another way, (like
</I>><i> > >> > installing a meta package that enforces some limits.)
</I>><i> > >> > codecs seem odd to be separate, if they have patented problems they
</I>><i> > >> > should go in non_free, if no problem, they can go in core.
</I>><i> > >>
</I>><i> > >> That is doable.
</I>><i> > >> The reason for having it separate was because its the most
</I>><i> > >> "problematic" one. (codecs have more issues than firmware)
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > What i meant here, is why is firmware separate from core? why is codecs
</I>><i> > > separate from core?
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > imo, i would put firmware and codecs in either core or non_free.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > I guess we should separate concerns?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > - non_free as in "not (really) free software" (source code may be
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > available, but license, redistribution conditions, etc.)
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > - problematic stuff as in "binary closed thing" (most firmware, but
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > not only eventually)
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Well, "binary closed thing" mean "source code may be available, but not for
</I>><i> anybody outside the company". It look like a lot like "source code may be
</I>><i> available, but license, redistribution conditions" , with redistribution
</I>><i> conditions mean "no unless you are the shareholder board" .
</I>><i> So they are the same thing, ie non_free.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > - problematic stuff as in "(likely) patented" (some codecs)
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Patented and likely enforced. There is some patents on WebM, since google
</I>><i> bought ON2, but they gave a patent promise. The same could go for invalid
</I>><i> patents, where there is clear prior art, like
</I>><i> <A HREF="http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/11/patent-madness-by-tandberg/">http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/11/patent-madness-by-tandberg/</A> .
</I>><i>
</I>><i> We could also speak of Java, and the claims from Oracle (
</I>><i> <A HREF="http://www.betanews.com/article/This-is-big-Oracle-claims-Android-violates-">http://www.betanews.com/article/This-is-big-Oracle-claims-Android-violates-</A>
</I>><i> its-Java-patents-sues-Google/1281675545 ), which would be quite broad,
</I>><i> <A HREF="http://www.google.com/patents?id=dyQGAAAAEBAJ">http://www.google.com/patents?id=dyQGAAAAEBAJ</A> for example seems either
</I>><i> invalid, or very similar to selinux and traditional unix permissions, the
</I>><i> sae goes for <A HREF="http://www.google.com/patents?id=G1YGAAAAEBAJ">http://www.google.com/patents?id=G1YGAAAAEBAJ</A> .
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So codecs definitly doesn't sound like the proper name if we may end
</I>><i> putting the whole java stack there. ( since there is patents, and since
</I>><i> they are clearly enforced, and since openjdk is free software (=> !
</I>><i> non_free ) ).
</I>
so, you're agreeing with me then. there is no need for codecs or firmware
repositories?
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001453.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001441.html">[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1457">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1457">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1457">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1457">[ 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>
|
