[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

[Michael scherer]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0200, Olivier Méjean wrote:
> Le jeudi 14 octobre 2010 20:55:01, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:22:01 Michael Scherer wrote:
> > > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> > > > Hi all!
> > > > 
> > > > Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning
> > > > we should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> > > > 
> > > > Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in this
> > > > post, only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
> > > > 
> > > > Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I have
> > > > one):
> > > > 
> > > > == Do we want a separated core repository?
> > > > 
> > > > No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
> > > > Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)
> > > 
> > > How do we decide what would be in core ?
> > 
> > AFAICS the only reasonable reason would be to separate 'supported' and
> > 'unsupported' packages (whatever the definition we will choose for those).
> > 
> 
> What is a supported package or what is an unsupported package ?
> 
> For Mandriva it was clear, packages on which Mandriva provides support is in 
> main, if not it's in contrib.

No, since there was unsupported packages in main ( think stuff like ld.so1.2 ),
and support could perfectly answer to questions depending on the contract, even 
on packages in contribs.

There is also weird stuff like php-yp ( in contrib ), who was built from the same source than others
php packages, who was thus in main and supported.

No to mention that there was no process for deciding what goes in main, except that it was required
by something else in main. There is also issues of old packages that were never moved out of
main, despites not really supported.

So no, it was not clear. 
 
> > > > == What about patents?
> > > > 
> > > > Almost no software with patents: Fedora, Opensuse
> > > > 
> > > >  - Essentially no media codecs except theora/vorbis/ogg/vp8 etc.
> > > >  - Strange exception: libXft, Cairo and Qt4 are shipped with LCD
> > > >  filtering
> > > >  
> > > >    support enabled, even if it is disabled in freetype
> > > > 
> > > > No software with enforced patents: Debian
> > > > 
> > > >  - not included (at least): x264 (encoder), lame mp3 (encoder)
> > > >  - included (at least): MPEG/x decoders, H.264 decoders, MP3 decoders,
> > > >  
> > > >    AAC decoders, AMR decoders, DTS decoders, AC3 decoders,
> > > >    WMV/WMA decoders, realvideo decoders, etc
> > > > 
> > > > Some software covered by patents not included: Mandriva
> > > > 
> > > >  - see below for more information
> > > > 
> > > > All software covered by patents allowed: Arch, Ubuntu
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IMO we should alter our policy to match either Fedora, Debian or
> > > > Ubuntu.. The Mandriva policy makes no sense (for example, no AAC
> > > > decoder but yes for H.264 decoder and MPEG-4 encoder?).
> > > > I'm really not sure which way we should go, though. WDYT?
> > > 
> > > I would go the Debian way.
> > > Ubuntu and Fedora are tied to companies, and Debian is not, so their
> > > policies are likely more adapted to our own model.
> > > 
> > > Debian way seems to be more pragmatic that Ubuntu/Fedora on that matter.
> > 
> > Indeed, Debian's situation seems closer to ours.
> > 
> > However, a bit more investigation shows that the Debian policy "no enforced
> > patents" is not really a written policy and what it means in practice is
> > not 100% clear. A clarification request [1] has gone unanswered for 1.5
> > years, and "missing" packages x264,lame,xvidcore are sitting in the NEW
> > queue [2] without having been accepted or rejected yet (it has "only" been
> > 2.5 months, though).
> > 
> > 
> > BTW, other related 'missing' packages in debian are "mjpegtools", "faac",
> > "transcode", but the first two are missing due to license reasons instead
> > of patent issues:
> > 
> > mjpegtools contains source files that are "All Rights Reserved" by
> > "MPEG/audio software simulation group" (Ubuntu has the package in
> > multiverse, Mandriva in main)
> > 
> > faac contains a limitation that it is not allowed to be used in software
> > not conforming to MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio standards, which makes it
> > non-opensource (Ubuntu has the package in multiverse, Mandriva doesn't
> > have it).
> > 
> > transcode is missing, but there's been no recent activity on it that would
> > explain why it isn't there (IIRC its supported codecs are a subset of
> > ffmpeg ones, and ffmpeg is in Debian).
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522373
> > (note that debian had some encoders disabled in ffmpeg at the time of the
> > above report; those have since been enabled)
> > [2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> 
> Questions about patents is related to which law applies to Mageia. No answers 
> to which law then no clear policy can be applied.
>
> For me, since Mageia.org will lead the project (and will own Mageia 
> trademarks) is located in France, since build system of Mageia will be in 
> France

There is no guarantee that the BS will always be located in France. So I think you should
not make assumptions like this.

> then French law is the law we have to consider for Mageia. Debian runs 
> under SPI organization located in the state of New York, USA, thus is ruled by 
> US Laws.

Since the only people who will have issue with this are the president ( aka Anne )
and the people who distribute this ( ie mirrors admins ), I think we should
ask them and follow their opinions, and only theirs. Because
we can speak of "we have no problem", we will have nothing what ever we do, because we
are likely not liable. Anne and mirrors owners are. So their words is what does count.

-- 
Michael Scherer