[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

[Michael scherer]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:51:59AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes
> <maarten.vanraes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund:
> > [...]
> >> > A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However, i do
> >> > understand that some people would not want to install firmware, but i
> >> > think we should do this in another way, (like installing a meta package
> >> > that enforces some limits.)
> >> > codecs seem odd to be separate, if they have patented problems they
> >> > should go in non_free, if no problem, they can go in core.
> >>
> >> That is doable.
> >> The reason for having it separate was because its the most "problematic"
> >> one. (codecs have more issues than firmware)
> >
> > What i meant here, is why is firmware separate from core? why is codecs
> > separate from core?
> >
> > imo, i would put firmware and codecs in either core or non_free.
> 
> I guess we should separate concerns?
>  - non_free as in "not (really) free software" (source code may be
> available, but license, redistribution conditions, etc.)
>  - problematic stuff as in "binary closed thing" (most firmware, but
> not only eventually)

Well, "binary closed thing" mean "source code may be available, but not for anybody
outside the company". It look like a lot like "source code may be
available, but license, redistribution conditions" , with redistribution conditions
mean "no unless you are the shareholder board" .
So they are the same thing, ie non_free.

>  - problematic stuff as in "(likely) patented" (some codecs)

Patented and likely enforced. There is some patents on WebM, since google bought
ON2, but they gave a patent promise. The same could go for invalid patents, where there
is clear prior art, like http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/11/patent-madness-by-tandberg/ .

We could also speak of Java, and the claims from Oracle ( 
http://www.betanews.com/article/This-is-big-Oracle-claims-Android-violates-its-Java-patents-sues-Google/1281675545 ),
which would be quite broad, http://www.google.com/patents?id=dyQGAAAAEBAJ for example seems either invalid, or very similar
to selinux and traditional unix permissions, the sae goes for http://www.google.com/patents?id=G1YGAAAAEBAJ .

So codecs definitly doesn't sound like the proper name if we may end putting the whole java stack there.
( since there is patents, and since they are clearly enforced, and since openjdk is free software (=> ! non_free ) ).

-- 
Michael Scherer