[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

[andre999]

Johnny A. Solbu a écrit :
> On Tuesday 30 October 2012 02:44, andre999 wrote:
>> If there is some constraint on the redistribution of a package in some
>> countries, such as patent claims or encryption technology used or
>> whatever, mirrors in affected countries may reasonably want to avoid
>> carrying such packages.
>> For this reason, we created the "tainted" repos, which are optional for
>> official mirrors.
>> However we added the additional restriction that packages in tainted
>> must also be open source, to satisfy those that don't want to install
>> non-free packages.
>>
>> If we want to continue this additional restriction, we would have to
>> create another set of repos for packages that are both constrained
>> (tainted) and non-free, in order to carry such packages.
>
> The problem of including nonfree spftware in tainted, is that it no longer is a Free software repo in countries that don't accept software patents.

So how is that a problem ?
Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head to say that they have to 
install a package just because it is in tainted.
Nobody can install all packages in core, nor all packages in nonfree.
Maybe one could install all packages in tainted (as there are not very 
many), but it is normal to be selective in installing packages.

Would it help if a user could set a configuration to automatically 
control the installation of non-free packages.
Something like "never", "confirm each time", or "always", similar to 
what has been proposed for isos ?
Don't forget that packages in the tainted repo have to be downloaded 
from the net, unlike packages in core or nonfree, which could be on an 
iso.  So having an additional control, and using the "never" option 
would eliminate any chance of installing a non-free package from tainted.
Wouldn't that work for you ?

>
> Nonfree software belongs in a nonfree tree. If we need to create a new repo for them, so be it. That is the right thing to do.
> No one said that the right thing to do would be easy. :-)=
>
>> However there are very few packages that meet this restriction.  Also
>> the tainted repos contain relatively few packages, compared with core
>> and nonfree.
>
> What has that got to do with anything?
> Either a package is Free and open source software,  or it is not. wether it belongs in the majority or a tiny minority is not the issue.
> The issue at stake is our Freedom.

Good point.
I think that we can all agree that all users have the freedom to not 
install specific packages.
What many are asking is the freedom to readily access certain tainted + 
non-free packages, while others are worried about the overhead that an 
additional repo will bring for a relatively small number of packages.
So one possible compromise is putting all constrained packages in the 
tainted repos.

>
> I happens to live in a country where the packages in tainted is Free software in every sense of the word. And I don't believe that I'm the only one that is.
> Tainted is a convenience for those that live in a country that have software patents, not the otherway around. Don't clutter the water for those of us where tainted still is a Free software repo.
>
Firstly, software patents is only one factor that could put a package in 
tainted.  If you live in a NATO country, certain encryption software was 
restricted in the past, and some may still be.  So some software in 
tainted may be constrained in your country.
My suggestion above for additional configuration options that would 
allow automatically ignoring non-free packages in tainted would solve 
your problem in practical terms, as well as solving the problem of freer 
access to certain software for other users.
Note that I'm not likely to use such packages.  I'm essentially a 
bystander looking for a reasonable solution.

-- 
André