On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes <maarten.vanr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund: > [...] >> > A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However, i do >> > understand that some people would not want to install firmware, but i >> > think we should do this in another way, (like installing a meta package >> > that enforces some limits.) >> > codecs seem odd to be separate, if they have patented problems they >> > should go in non_free, if no problem, they can go in core. >> >> That is doable. >> The reason for having it separate was because its the most "problematic" >> one. (codecs have more issues than firmware) > > What i meant here, is why is firmware separate from core? why is codecs > separate from core? > > imo, i would put firmware and codecs in either core or non_free.
I guess we should separate concerns? - non_free as in "not (really) free software" (source code may be available, but license, redistribution conditions, etc.) - problematic stuff as in "binary closed thing" (most firmware, but not only eventually) - problematic stuff as in "(likely) patented" (some codecs) so that we don't mix issues when one has to decide what to mirror/use or not. Romain