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

[Michael Scherer]

Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 23:28 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
> 
> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49
> 
> > Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
> > > Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
> > > > sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
> > > > > During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the
> > > > > packages I'm working
> > > > > on, the question came up what the appropriate repository
> > > > > for a package is
> > > > > that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license)
> > > > > and tainted
> > > > > (contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of
> > > > > the world).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Should a non-free+tainted package go in tainted, i.e. is
> > > > > the tainted repo
> > > > > for all tainted packages, both free and non-free
> > > > 
> > > > tainted, as thats a "bigger" issue than nonfree
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas
> > > 
> > > I would have said the opposite, so that using core + tainted you're
> > > sure to 
> > > get free software :)
> > 
> > The same.
> > 
> > Ie, a non-free may have more stringent distribution requirements than
> > a
> > free software. 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean, the packages in 'non-free' are being
> distributed the same way as the ones in 'core' or 'tainted', i.e. on all
> mirrors and partially on ISOs/CDs/DVDs, otherwise we wouldn't even be able
> to include them in the repos at all.

A non-free package is also something like "do not use if you are
military". We had the case in PLF. 

> The issue with 'non-free' is generally one of limitations on the use of the
> software and/or source code not normally of distribution, in Mandriva the
> software with distribution restrictions normally ends up in 'restricted'
> not in 'non-free'.
> 
> On the other hand a 'tainted+non-free' package has the bigger issue of
> containing patent issues (at least for some countries) so I would assume
> that it's a lot more important to keep 'tainted' packages clearly separate
> for people or mirrors that don't want to risk breaking patent laws in the
> affected countries.
> 
> If we put 'tainted+non-free' software in 'non-free' then it will be very
> hard for a normal user or mirror admin to recognize it as being a
> potential patent liability.

Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe
for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do
commercial business around it, and also pay the patent holder for usage,
as seen when accepting the license on installation.


-- 
Michael Scherer