[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

[Maarten Vanraes]

Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 10:03:53 schreef 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 ) ).


so, you're agreeing with me then. there is no need for codecs or firmware 
repositories?