On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:51:59AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote: > 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)
Well, "binary closed thing" mean "source code may be available, but not for anybody outside the company". It look like a lot like "source code may be available, but license, redistribution conditions" , with redistribution conditions mean "no unless you are the shareholder board" . So they are the same thing, ie non_free. > - problematic stuff as in "(likely) patented" (some codecs) Patented and likely enforced. There is some patents on WebM, since google bought ON2, but they gave a patent promise. The same could go for invalid patents, where there is clear prior art, like http://jan.wildeboer.net/2010/11/patent-madness-by-tandberg/ . We could also speak of Java, and the claims from Oracle ( http://www.betanews.com/article/This-is-big-Oracle-claims-Android-violates-its-Java-patents-sues-Google/1281675545 ), which would be quite broad, http://www.google.com/patents?id=dyQGAAAAEBAJ for example seems either invalid, or very similar to selinux and traditional unix permissions, the sae goes for http://www.google.com/patents?id=G1YGAAAAEBAJ . So codecs definitly doesn't sound like the proper name if we may end putting the whole java stack there. ( since there is patents, and since they are clearly enforced, and since openjdk is free software (=> ! non_free ) ). -- Michael Scherer