[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?

Wolfgang Bornath molch.b at googlemail.com
Thu Jul 7 05:59:26 CEST 2011


2011/7/7 andre999 <andr55 at laposte.net>:
> Anssi Hannula a écrit :
>>
>> On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny<rdalverny at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir<ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny<rdalverny at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath<molch.b at googlemail.com>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
>>>>>>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
>>>>>>> licensing) will go into tainted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all. Clear and simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by
>>>>>>> tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go
>>>>>>> to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses
>>>>>> says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be
>>>>>> free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in
>>>>>> certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe:
>>>>>>  - "core" hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere
>>>>>> (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that)
>>>>>>  - "nonfree" hosts non-free software that can be redistributed
>>>>>> anywhere (same)
>>>>>>  - "tainted" hosts all the rest, be it free software or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Third point is wrong, "a license that is might be free or open
>>>>> source", which, I think, means only software with an open source
>>>>> software License.
>>>>
>>>> I understand this as: software that might be free or open source =>
>>>> can be not free or open source. "might" expressed the possibility, not
>>>> the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free
>>>> software.
>>>
>>> It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the
>>> tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in
>>> tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to
>>> express our stance on the issue in a clearer way...
>>
>> I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to
>> me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere).
>>
>> There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in
>> tainted, though.
>
> This discussion reminds me of the recent Oracle claims of patent
> infringement against Google, over Google's use of Java in Android.
> These patents were all issued by the US patent office.
> Google referred about 100 of these claims to the patent office for
> evaluation.
> The patent office invalidated all but 17.
> And these 17 may yet be invalidated by the courts.
>
> Google has not yet referred many other of the patent claims for examination
> by the patent office.
>
> So patent claims only _potentially_ result in legal problems. (As well as
> only in a few countries.)

"potentially" and "only in a few countries" are not valid arguments -
especially for those who live in such countries.

> Which makes me think that the free/non-free distinction is probably much
> more important.

I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in
tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has
it is not free and goes in tainted.

-- 
wobo


More information about the Mageia-dev mailing list