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

[andre999]

Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
> 2011/7/9 andre999<andr55 at laposte.net>:
>> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
>>>
>>> 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil<tvl83 at gmx.de>:
>>>>
>>>> Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/7/8 James Kerr<jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
>>>>>> re-stated as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> single tainted repository?
>>>>>
>>>>> How can tainted software be free software at the same time?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because free is a matter of license, while tainted is a matter of
>>>> patents.
>>>> For example, the libdvdcss2 is free, as the the source-code is open (GPL)
>>>> but it touches the patent issue, so it's tainted.
>>>
>>> Yes, if you regard patents not as a criterium for free or non-free
>>> then this division makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>  From that point of view we need the same structure as PLF
>>>
>>> (tainted-free and tainted-non-free).
>>
>> As well, the question of patent claims is a totally hypothetical problem, in
>> almost every country -- including the USA -- for mirrors that carry distros
>> like Mageia.
>> (In the USA, the patent office used to systematically refuse patent claims
>> on software.  And patents are only examined for conflicting US patents
>> before being registered.  Not for the acceptability of the patent itself.)
>>
>> So basically, tainted is for the benefit of those who would like to support
>> software patents.
>
> You say that people who obey to the laws of their country are to blame
> for obeying these laws? That's ridiculous.

It is not at all a question of obeying laws.
A patent is granted to give certain civil rights on the part of the patent 
holder, for original developments, that are not obvious from existing 
knowledge.  The idea is to encourage innovation by protecting the investments 
made by innovators.
Because patents are granted essentially on the basis of not conflicting with 
other patents (especially software patents), there is no assurance that a 
patent is valid at all.  Patents on software are particularly problematic, as 
software is based on logic, and what is obvious from existing knowledge is not 
necessarily apparent to those not in the computer field.  It most countries 
such patents are denied.
In the USA, patents on software are (at least sometimes) accepted, most patent 
claims are not supported by the courts.  In other words, they are not valid.
If you had read the reference, you should have understood that.

> The fact that nobody (in FOSS community) has been called to court yet
> does not mean that the related laws do not exist!
> The Debian paper (Romain linked to) has an answer to the reasons.

Which clearly indicates that the risk is minimal in the countries where such a 
risk exists.  According to the report, no cases to date against FOSS software, 
distributed by non-commercial entities.  Basically my point.
It also warns against paranoia about patents.
This paranoia seems to me a bit like never crossing a street because one might 
get run over by a bus.  Even if one crosses in a marked crosswalk.

> Besides, tainted is not only about patents, it's also about software
> which is illegal in certain countries (like libdvdcss).

Ok, a relatively limited application.

So in all, maybe a handful of packages at most should be in tainted.
So why do we have more than 150 ?

-- 
André