Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 10:03:53 schreef Michael scherer: > 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 ) ).
so, you're agreeing with me then. there is no need for codecs or firmware repositories?