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

[Ahmad Samir]

On 6 July 2011 21:54, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula at iki.fi> wrote:
> 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.
>
> --
> Anssi Hannula
>

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth; What I meant was, the
current policy, from what I understood (and what you said in the
thread about handbrake, and in the faac package request bug report)
said tainted doesn't have nonfree software.

I am not opposed to getting faac in the repos, but things should be
clear about what goes where, IINM one thing we all agreed on was that
there was no consistency about the enabled codecs in mdv, and that
since we're starting afresh things should be clear.

-- 
Ahmad Samir