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

[Wolfgang Bornath]

2011/7/12 andre999 <andr55 at laposte.net>:
> 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 ?

Sorry, but I do not understand your way of thinking. If a law exists
it exists. It does not matter to a law whether it is likely to be
enforced. Period.
This is not paranoia, it is a matter of mind set. If robbery would not
be prosecuted, would you go out and earn your doe by taking away
handbags from old ladies? You would not, because it is wrong. For
those who are living in countries where patents are valid and accepted
by the law, using a patented software is wrong. So you must accept
that there are people who would not do it. Telling them how they
should think about it is not ours. That's why we have the tainted
repo.

-- 
wobo