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

[andre999]

Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
> 2011/7/8 andre999<andr55 at laposte.net>:
>> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
>>>
>>> 2011/7/7 nicolas vigier<boklm at mars-attacks.org>:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software
>>>> can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented.
>>>
>>> Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace "restrictive
>>> license" with "patents" in my sentence.
>>
>> "free" means that it can be redistributed with source code, with a free/open
>> source license.
>> "non-free" (in terms of the repos) means that it can be redistributed, but
>> either not with source code, according to the license + or we simply don't
>> have/can't get the source code.
>> "tainted" was mostly for packages affected to some extent by tainted
>> patents.
>> Such packages could be free or non-free, that has nothing to do with being
>> in "tainted".
>> Some discussions in the past considered that the likelihood of a patent
>> impacting a particular software (in the few countries that do accept
>> software packages to some extent, like the USA), should affect whether it
>> goes into tainted or not.  I don't know what consensus there was on this
>> point, if any.
>
> That exactly was the reason why "tainted" was created. The gathering
> of such software in one repo to make it easy for users and mirror
> maintainers in those countries to avoid them if they chose (or are
> forced) to do so.

Since as far as I know, nobody introduced any evidence during the debate of any 
mirror being pursued for carrying potentially patent-affected packages, despite 
the fact that many mirrors in the USA, for example, carry such packages, any 
problem for mirrors is a moot point.

However users (or mirrors) that wish to respect patent claims would evidently 
appreciate avoiding the contents of a "tainted" repository.

Remember that very few patent claims against software are ever validated by the 
courts.  Most pursuits in the USA are against companies with very deep pockets, 
which are often settled out of court for convenience.  Generally in these 
cases, the defending party is earning revenues from the subject of the patent 
claim.  Which of course doesn't apply to software distributed for free by mirrors.
(e.g., if I remember correctly, Novell paid license fees to Microsoft for 
patent claims, while other companies successfully contested the same claims in 
court.)

-- 
André