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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20rehashing%20the%20faac%20issue&In-Reply-To=%3C508F30EF.8050701%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="019630.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="019637.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20rehashing%20the%20faac%20issue&In-Reply-To=%3C508F30EF.8050701%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Oct 30 02:44:15 CET 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="019630.html">[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="019637.html">[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#19634">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#19634">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#19634">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#19634">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Christiaan Welvaart a écrit :
><i> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> Nice to see that everyone went back to Start with this discussion,
</I>>><i> almost using the same words in their arguments. Is this really needed?
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> There has been a wide consensus for the solution to put it into
</I>>><i> tainted as has been said in this thread as well. There are 2 options
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Each package in non-free must be inspected case-by-case to know if it
</I>><i> can be distributed/used, but their licenses are valid world-wide
</I>><i> (because copyright is pretty much universally accepted). The packages in
</I>><i> tainted can all be used/distributed *if* patents on software are not
</I>><i> considered valid in the country where the user/mirror resides. Do you
</I>><i> really want to mix those two?
</I>
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.
><i>
</I>><i> Christiaan
</I>><i>
</I>
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="019630.html">[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="019637.html">[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#19634">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#19634">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#19634">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#19634">[ 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>
|
