[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc
rdalverny at gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 11:49:24 CEST 2010
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:50, Marc Paré <marc at marcpare.com> wrote:
> Let the user then assume that responsibility/liability.
> This is where, I consider the "easy urpmi" served its purpose well. It
> installed repos where the available software that most users would need was
> made available, but this again was by user choice.
I don't really see how this would "fix" the issue; by using a
third-party repository (plf or through easy urpmi) you just move the
concerns to another provider:
- if the user is liable anyway, having a single or several providers
- if the user is not liable anyway, having several providers only
moves the liability from one provider to the other one.
This particular point, about _patented_ software is a tricky one
indeed. Dealing with local/international laws is tricky. Especially
when both change over time.
However, first point is not to mix different issues here:
- supported software and not-supported (and what means "supported")
- free vs. non-free/proprietary software (as in FSF/OSI definitions)
- gratis vs. paid software
- for non-free software, distribution/usage cases may be tricky
(skype, opera for instance)
- software implementation/distribution that violates/have to comply
specific laws (encryption, DRMs)
- for patented software/methods, implementation/distribution/usage
cases are tricky as well (a patent may or may not block you from using
the method, depends on who holds the patent and for what purpose).
- maybe more with more details; Anssi pretty much defined categories
in his first message here.
We definitely can't say bluntly "let's ignore all laws because we
can't enforce them all". We must define our policies for what goes in
Mageia repositories, what stays out, what goes out (and why). These
policies must align with (and be part of) Mageia values and direction.
More information about the Mageia-dev