subject:"\[Mageia\-dev\] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc"

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:

> As mirror maintainer/owner of Mandriva Linux and future Mageia
> (ftp.mandrivauser.de) I discussed this problem with my friends and we
> decided not to mirror PLF although a German university does
> (ftp.gwdg.de). The point is that our mirror is hosted on a private
> server where just one person is liable (me, unfortunately). But we
> also decided to mirror the non-free branch of Mandriva Linux. There is
> non-free and there is patented and/or legally unclear software - we
> will definitely stay away from the latter when mirroring Mageia.
> Making a difference between such software on the parent mirror will
> make it easy for mirrors such as ours. Distributing such software in
> the same branches as "normal" software will make it impossible to
> mirror Mageia.

wobo, I perfectly understand your reasons especially since as you say 
the server is privately owned by you, not an association or a company.

OTOH I think your worry is unfounded, the patent issues are mostly US 
issues, not so much European issues.

Also separating out packages will be very difficult (I would say 
impossible) since not even lawyers can know for sure which software has 
patent issues and which one not.
It's not just a problem with codecs, ANY software could have patent 
issues (in the US at least).

For example Microsoft is claiming that the Linux kernel is in breach of 
several patents help by Microsoft.

Do you want to not mirror the kernel?

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread Wolfgang Bornath

2010/10/15 Anssi Hannula :
>
> Seems sensible to ask the mirror owners. It is possible some of them have not
> been aware of the problem at all, so I think we should make sure they
> understand that Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, etc. also contain patented technologies
> (to avoid the situation where they are willing to mirror Ubuntu/Debian/Arch
> but not allow patented software in Mageia, just because the other
> distributions didn't notify them of the issue; if they don't want to mirror
> Mageia if it contained patent-encumbered software, they really shouldn't be
> mirroring those other distributions either).

As mirror maintainer/owner of Mandriva Linux and future Mageia
(ftp.mandrivauser.de) I discussed this problem with my friends and we
decided not to mirror PLF although a German university does
(ftp.gwdg.de). The point is that our mirror is hosted on a private
server where just one person is liable (me, unfortunately). But we
also decided to mirror the non-free branch of Mandriva Linux. There is
non-free and there is patented and/or legally unclear software - we
will definitely stay away from the latter when mirroring Mageia.
Making a difference between such software on the parent mirror will
make it easy for mirrors such as ours. Distributing such software in
the same branches as "normal" software will make it impossible to
mirror Mageia.

-- 
wobo

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread Romain d'Alverny

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:40, Tux99  wrote:
> [...]

Ok. This is, again, going nowhere. We don't even follow who is trying
to make what point.

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>> Who talks about marketing here? Please stay on topic. Misc is talking
>> about official representatives, board members liability - not only in
>> France, but abroad. We're not in Merovingian times where one was
>> judged according to his original land's law.
>
> Assuming that a board member get's arrested in the US because Mageia

Who talks about being arrested or "frightened"?... Being liable and
being arrested are two distinct things...

>> There is no guarantee that we won't setup affiliate not-for-profit
>> orgs abroad.
>> Etc.
>
> If for this reason Mageia has to be a crippled mediocre product then all
> these precautions were a wast of time and efforts too.
> There is no point in making a grand, legally sound structure for a
> useless product with a fading community.

...

I don't understand your point, neither your attitude here...

> A successfull Mageia would strive to take advantage of the countries
> with the best laws for it's interest rather than plan according to the
> lowest common denominator.

Who said that was the plan?...

>> wouldn't have located the association in France. There are other
>> places far more interesting in this regard.
>
> And if you want Mageia to be really successful you should take advantage
> of those places.

Yes, right. :-) You know better the picture/history we (founders) are
in. We're not going to incorporate right now at the other end of the
world. :-)

>>  - what do we _want_ to have in software repositories and _why_?
>
> Easy, we want the best distro possible, with the best possible out of
> the box experience,

That is a very vague statement. "I want it all". However, we will get
to that in time, see my previous post (yesterday) about the goal(s) of
Mageia.org.

>>  - what are legal constraints that we must deal with
>> (building/packaging/distributing/using), and how?
>
> We should strive to take advantage of the best legal environment to make
> our targets possible.

Sure. In a sustainable way.

>>  - how can we make this a predictable process for future situations?
>
> No one can predict the future, laws change all the time so the only way
> is to base ourselves on current valid laws and keep frexible to move to
> a better legal environment if necessary.

This was not relative to laws only, but to the project mission first.

> Opportunities not fear should be the key word here.

Who speaks about fear? we're speaking about finding a policy for the
project here.

And I believe we are all able to _discuss_ this calmly without being
offensive... Again, this conversation is going nowhere.

Please, guys, post a _proposal_ for comments somewhere in a fixed
format (blog, wiki page, anything) before proposing it for comment in
a mail discussion. Or... make sure to frame the conversation, in
topic, in time and in language.

Cheers,

Romain

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread yvan munoz

2010/10/15 Tux99 

>
I agree.
it is a misuse of the word "user".

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, yvan munoz wrote:

> I think all non-free could be supported directly by users and accessibles
> through "users repo". Not in (only one please) Mageia Repo. And Users Repo
> could contains drivers, patent-troll techno, flash, etc, in additon with
> more classicals softwares into "users repo".

Mageia is a community distro which means made by users for users.
Therefore a separate 'user' repo makes no sense at all, all Mageia repos 
are user repos.

And if you are such a freedom advocate then you should respect
freedom OF CHOICE for other users too, you don't have to install the 
non-libre software that might be in the repos or on the isos.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread yvan munoz

Hello list :)

I now it's impossible to stop discussion for me, so i could only post my
personnal point of view.

First:
I am Libre software user.
I am pragmatic.

Then :
Please not use any non-free (as libre) software into Mageia distribution or
repository. Never.
There is, however, a very strict frontier : we could only include
hardware imperative necessity, such as firmware for network cards.

No nonfree drivers when free equivalent are possibles, no flash, no nonfree
browser, no patent-troll tech : anything but free. And only exception for
no-equivalent firmware hardware support.

###

Another point of view, on repo orga now :
This is not Europe of supporting U.S. patents.
But the U.S. repo sysadmin to be able to comply with law og their own
countries.

I think all non-free could be supported directly by users and accessibles
through "users repo". Not in (only one please) Mageia Repo. And Users Repo
could contains drivers, patent-troll techno, flash, etc, in additon with
more classicals softwares into "users repo".

benefits :
Free for all
Keep Mageia Free as Libre.
Dont block Mageia install due to firmware cause. Important to have
easy-as-possible hardware support.
Open second repo for users, and give reasons in donate non-free softwares to
users support.


Regards

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread Romain d'Alverny

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 13:45, Tux99  wrote:
> I assume none of us is a lawyer (especially not with expertise in the
> laws of all countries), so giving legal advice to the mirror admins is
> pointless and most likely counterproductive.

Unless we set up a legal team partly for that. But that makes a
serious load of work to consider here. To consider nonetheless.

> Imagine how other distros will react if they find out that Mageia
> induced some mirrors to drop their distros, now that would make Mageia
> popular in the wider Linux community...

Of course not an option... that's not even the topic... please.

Romain

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Anssi Hannula wrote:

> Seems sensible to ask the mirror owners. It is possible some of them have not 
> been aware of the problem at all, so I think we should make sure they 
> understand that Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, etc. also contain patented technologies 
> (to avoid the situation where they are willing to mirror Ubuntu/Debian/Arch 
> but not allow patented software in Mageia, just because the other 
> distributions didn't notify them of the issue; if they don't want to mirror 
> Mageia if it contained patent-encumbered software, they really shouldn't be 
> mirroring those other distributions either).

While you are right that we should point out that Ubuntu/Debian/Arch 
contain the same potentially patent-infringing (in a few countries) 
software as Mageia IN CASE THEY OBJECT to this in Mageia, I don't see 
why we should stirr up a hornets nest in the first place. 

The mirror maintainers are responsible adults, you don't need to point 
out anything to them, it's their decision and their responsibility to 
comply with local laws of their country.

I assume none of us is a lawyer (especially not with expertise in the 
laws of all countries), so giving legal advice to the mirror admins is 
pointless and most likely counterproductive.

Imagine how other distros will react if they find out that Mageia 
induced some mirrors to drop their distros, now that would make Mageia 
popular in the wider Linux community...

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread Anssi Hannula

Michael scherer kirjoitti perjantai, 15. lokakuuta 2010 02:18:37:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0200, Olivier Méjean wrote:
> > then French law is the law we have to consider for Mageia. Debian runs
> > under SPI organization located in the state of New York, USA, thus is
> > ruled by US Laws.
> 
> Since the only people who will have issue with this are the president ( aka
> Anne ) and the people who distribute this ( ie mirrors admins ), I think
> we should ask them and follow their opinions, and only theirs. Because
> we can speak of "we have no problem", we will have nothing what ever we do,
> because we are likely not liable. Anne and mirrors owners are. So their
> words is what does count.

Seems sensible to ask the mirror owners. It is possible some of them have not 
been aware of the problem at all, so I think we should make sure they 
understand that Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, etc. also contain patented technologies 
(to avoid the situation where they are willing to mirror Ubuntu/Debian/Arch 
but not allow patented software in Mageia, just because the other 
distributions didn't notify them of the issue; if they don't want to mirror 
Mageia if it contained patent-encumbered software, they really shouldn't be 
mirroring those other distributions either).

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Romain d'Alverny wrote:

> > So is Mageia a community project or not ?
> 
> Yes and? That doesn't prevent that there is an association that will
> own trademark, servers, manage money, etc. and that is a legal
> construction that may be liable, in France or in regard to
> international laws.

No one said anything about breaking French laws, in fact what we said is 
to follow French law.
There is no such thing as international law, only international treaties 
that might have been incorporated into French law.

> Who talks about marketing here? Please stay on topic. Misc is talking
> about official representatives, board members liability - not only in
> France, but abroad. We're not in Merovingian times where one was
> judged according to his original land's law.

Assuming that a board member get's arrested in the US because Mageia 
includes software that is covered by patents is laughable, especially 
when that same software is mirrored without problems on US hosts.
I think anyone who is that frightened shouldn't candidate him/herself as 
board member.

> As misc said, there is no guarantee, neither definitive rule that the
> build system (or parts of it) would be only located in France.

Moving the BS would only make sense if the countries it moves to 
provides a better legal environment, not a worse one, so this argument 
doesn't make sense.

> There is no guarantee that board members will always be in France. 

As I said no one is forced to be a board member.

> There is no guarantee that we won't setup affiliate not-for-profit 
> orgs abroad.
> Etc.

If for this reason Mageia has to be a crippled mediocre product then all 
these precautions were a wast of time and efforts too.
There is no point in making a grand, legally sound structure for a
useless product with a fading community.

> We're going to distribute software all around the world in several
> ways, potentially, so we must think global here, and not only local.

True, but take global corporations as example, corporations take 
advantage legal evironments offered by specific countries to achieve 
their aims, rather than dumb down their products and services so that 
they comply with all laws in all countries.

A successfull Mageia would strive to take advantage of the countries 
with the best laws for it's interest rather than plan according to the 
lowest common denominator.

> wouldn't have located the association in France. There are other
> places far more interesting in this regard.

And if you want Mageia to be really successful you should take advantage 
of those places.

>  - what do we _want_ to have in software repositories and _why_?

Easy, we want the best distro possible, with the best possible out of 
the box experience, which for many people includes all necessary codecs 
to play every possible media file, to enable transcoding, audio video 
production, privacy tools, encryption, etc.

In other words freedom and ease of use for the user.

>  - what are legal constraints that we must deal with
> (building/packaging/distributing/using), and how?

We should strive to take advantage of the best legal environment to make 
our targets possible.

>  - how can we make this a predictable process for future situations?

No one can predict the future, laws change all the time so the only way 
is to base ourselves on current valid laws and keep frexible to move to 
a better legal environment if necessary.

Opportunities not fear should be the key word here.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-15 Thread Romain d'Alverny

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
> Le vendredi 15 octobre 2010 01:18:37, Michael scherer a écrit :
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0200, Olivier Méjean wrote:
>> Since the only people who will have issue with this are the president ( aka
>> Anne ) and the people who distribute this ( ie mirrors admins ), I think
>> we should ask them and follow their opinions, and only theirs. Because
>> we can speak of "we have no problem", we will have nothing what ever we do,
>> because we are likely not liable. Anne and mirrors owners are. So their
>> words is what does count.
>
> So is Mageia a community project or not ?

Yes and? That doesn't prevent that there is an association that will
own trademark, servers, manage money, etc. and that is a legal
construction that may be liable, in France or in regard to
international laws.

> Then when we will talk about Marketing stuff we will follow only marketing
> group opinions ?

Who talks about marketing here? Please stay on topic. Misc is talking
about official representatives, board members liability - not only in
France, but abroad. We're not in Merovingian times where one was
judged according to his original land's law.

> Of course their views count, but there is a difference between the
> responsability of Mageia association that must comply with French Laws

Sure but we can't just say that. See below.

> I do quite accept that Fedora, OpenSuse, Debian comply with US Law since there
> are located in the USA, thus accepting their policy about software patents. I
> would like that the same occurs for Mageia that is located in France.

As misc said, there is no guarantee, neither definitive rule that the
build system (or parts of it) would be only located in France. There
is no guarantee that board members will always be in France. There is
no guarantee that we won't setup affiliate not-for-profit orgs abroad.
Etc.

We're going to distribute software all around the world in several
ways, potentially, so we must think global here, and not only local.

If we were to follow the "let's only check local law", believe me, we
wouldn't have located the association in France. There are other
places far more interesting in this regard.

So the question is not "where is it allowed?" and "is it allowed where
we build it?" but:
 - what do we _want_ to have in software repositories and _why_?
 - what are legal constraints that we must deal with
(building/packaging/distributing/using), and how?
 - how can we make this a predictable process for future situations?

Romain

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-14 21:55, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :

2010/10/14 Marc Paré:


So, it sounds to me, that a core group individual, should, as an official
representative of the Mageia project, approach these organisations and FSF
to check and to get advice/opinons. Just to make sure.


Although I may not speak as an official Mageia rep I will present this
issue on the next meeting of our FSFE (FSF Europe) group (I'm a FSFE
Fellow). Maybe I can report back some helpful facts to this
discussion.



Sound good to me. If there is a Megeia core group lurking on this 
thread, could we delegate this task to Wolfgang or if it more of a 
pressing matter, someone could speak to the FSF directly for an opinion?


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-14 Thread Wolfgang Bornath

2010/10/14 Marc Paré :
>
> So, it sounds to me, that a core group individual, should, as an official
> representative of the Mageia project, approach these organisations and FSF
> to check and to get advice/opinons. Just to make sure.

Although I may not speak as an official Mageia rep I will present this
issue on the next meeting of our FSFE (FSF Europe) group (I'm a FSFE
Fellow). Maybe I can report back some helpful facts to this
discussion.

-- 
wobo

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-14 Thread Michael scherer

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0200, Olivier Méjean wrote:
> Le jeudi 14 octobre 2010 20:55:01, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:22:01 Michael Scherer wrote:
> > > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> > > > Hi all!
> > > > 
> > > > Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning
> > > > we should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> > > > 
> > > > Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in this
> > > > post, only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
> > > > 
> > > > Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I have
> > > > one):
> > > > 
> > > > == Do we want a separated core repository?
> > > > 
> > > > No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
> > > > Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)
> > > 
> > > How do we decide what would be in core ?
> > 
> > AFAICS the only reasonable reason would be to separate 'supported' and
> > 'unsupported' packages (whatever the definition we will choose for those).
> > 
> 
> What is a supported package or what is an unsupported package ?
> 
> For Mandriva it was clear, packages on which Mandriva provides support is in 
> main, if not it's in contrib.

No, since there was unsupported packages in main ( think stuff like ld.so1.2 ),
and support could perfectly answer to questions depending on the contract, even 
on packages in contribs.

There is also weird stuff like php-yp ( in contrib ), who was built from the 
same source than others
php packages, who was thus in main and supported.

No to mention that there was no process for deciding what goes in main, except 
that it was required
by something else in main. There is also issues of old packages that were never 
moved out of
main, despites not really supported.

So no, it was not clear. 
 
> > > > == What about patents?
> > > > 
> > > > Almost no software with patents: Fedora, Opensuse
> > > > 
> > > >  - Essentially no media codecs except theora/vorbis/ogg/vp8 etc.
> > > >  - Strange exception: libXft, Cairo and Qt4 are shipped with LCD
> > > >  filtering
> > > >  
> > > >support enabled, even if it is disabled in freetype
> > > > 
> > > > No software with enforced patents: Debian
> > > > 
> > > >  - not included (at least): x264 (encoder), lame mp3 (encoder)
> > > >  - included (at least): MPEG/x decoders, H.264 decoders, MP3 decoders,
> > > >  
> > > >AAC decoders, AMR decoders, DTS decoders, AC3 decoders,
> > > >WMV/WMA decoders, realvideo decoders, etc
> > > > 
> > > > Some software covered by patents not included: Mandriva
> > > > 
> > > >  - see below for more information
> > > > 
> > > > All software covered by patents allowed: Arch, Ubuntu
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IMO we should alter our policy to match either Fedora, Debian or
> > > > Ubuntu.. The Mandriva policy makes no sense (for example, no AAC
> > > > decoder but yes for H.264 decoder and MPEG-4 encoder?).
> > > > I'm really not sure which way we should go, though. WDYT?
> > > 
> > > I would go the Debian way.
> > > Ubuntu and Fedora are tied to companies, and Debian is not, so their
> > > policies are likely more adapted to our own model.
> > > 
> > > Debian way seems to be more pragmatic that Ubuntu/Fedora on that matter.
> > 
> > Indeed, Debian's situation seems closer to ours.
> > 
> > However, a bit more investigation shows that the Debian policy "no enforced
> > patents" is not really a written policy and what it means in practice is
> > not 100% clear. A clarification request [1] has gone unanswered for 1.5
> > years, and "missing" packages x264,lame,xvidcore are sitting in the NEW
> > queue [2] without having been accepted or rejected yet (it has "only" been
> > 2.5 months, though).
> > 
> > 
> > BTW, other related 'missing' packages in debian are "mjpegtools", "faac",
> > "transcode", but the first two are missing due to license reasons instead
> > of patent issues:
> > 
> > mjpegtools contains source files that are "All Rights Reserved" by
> > "MPEG/audio software simulation group" (Ubuntu has the package in
> > multiverse, Mandriva in main)
> > 
> > faac contains a limitation that it is not allowed to be used in software
> > not conforming to MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio standards, which makes it
> > non-opensource (Ubuntu has the package in multiverse, Mandriva doesn't
> > have it).
> > 
> > transcode is missing, but there's been no recent activity on it that would
> > explain why it isn't there (IIRC its supported codecs are a subset of
> > ffmpeg ones, and ffmpeg is in Debian).
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522373
> > (note that debian had some encoders disabled in ffmpeg at the time of the
> > above report; those have since been enabled)
> > [2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> 
> Questions about patents is related to which law applies to Mageia. No answers 
> to which law then no clear policy can be applied.
>
>

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc





Questions about patents is related to which law applies to Mageia. No answers
to which law then no clear policy can be applied.

For me, since Mageia.org will lead the project (and will own Mageia
trademarks) is located in France, since build system of Mageia will be in
France then French law is the law we have to consider for Mageia. Debian runs
under SPI organization located in the state of New York, USA, thus is ruled by
US Laws.




As we keep going round in circles, do we have anyone on-board with firm 
knowledge on international patent/licence laws in this domain (lawyer)? 
Should we just check with the FSF.org and they could give us an opinion 
on this? Maybe someone from the Mageia core group could check behind the 
scenes with the FSF?


If anything, the laws of most countries adhere to the notion that "being 
ignorant of the law is no excuse". If we are to put "questionable" 
software on different servers, we should maybe get crystal clear facts 
on the ramifications of doing so. How did the other distros go about 
making their decisions? I would check with the MAJOR distros, as this is 
what Mageia is all about. People all over will clamour for our distro. 
We are going to be a MAJOR and influential distro. So we should behave 
this way as well when we are setting up our mirror network.


So, it sounds to me, that a core group individual, should, as an 
official representative of the Mageia project, approach these 
organisations and FSF to check and to get advice/opinons. Just to make sure.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:22:01 Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> > Hi all!
> > 
> > Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning
> > we should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> > 
> > Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in this
> > post, only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
> > 
> > Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I have
> > one):
> > 
> > == Do we want a separated core repository?
> > 
> > No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
> > Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)
> 
> How do we decide what would be in core ?

AFAICS the only reasonable reason would be to separate 'supported' and 
'unsupported' packages (whatever the definition we will choose for those).

However, as-is the Mandriva system creates problems like the java one, where a 
builddependency mess causes everything to be in Main. It would probably be 
enough if run-time deps only were considered...

Also there are things like the kde upstream networkmanager stuff, where one 
component of a bigger source rpm (kdefoo4) depends on an 'unsupported' package 
(networkmanager). It could be allowed to put only one subpackage into Contrib.

On the other hand, we could simply use some tags (or Provides, or some other 
method) to denote the support status. This would fix the above to issues with 
the previous system. Of course, to do that, there needs to be support in 
rpmdrake/urpmi to properly handle such tag (and allow the user to disable 
'unsupported' packages if wanted).

> > == What about patents?
> > 
> > Almost no software with patents: Fedora, Opensuse
> > 
> >  - Essentially no media codecs except theora/vorbis/ogg/vp8 etc.
> >  - Strange exception: libXft, Cairo and Qt4 are shipped with LCD
> >  filtering
> >  
> >support enabled, even if it is disabled in freetype
> > 
> > No software with enforced patents: Debian
> > 
> >  - not included (at least): x264 (encoder), lame mp3 (encoder)
> >  - included (at least): MPEG/x decoders, H.264 decoders, MP3 decoders,
> >  
> >AAC decoders, AMR decoders, DTS decoders, AC3 decoders,
> >WMV/WMA decoders, realvideo decoders, etc
> > 
> > Some software covered by patents not included: Mandriva
> > 
> >  - see below for more information
> > 
> > All software covered by patents allowed: Arch, Ubuntu
> > 
> > 
> > IMO we should alter our policy to match either Fedora, Debian or
> > Ubuntu.. The Mandriva policy makes no sense (for example, no AAC
> > decoder but yes for H.264 decoder and MPEG-4 encoder?).
> > I'm really not sure which way we should go, though. WDYT?
> 
> I would go the Debian way.
> Ubuntu and Fedora are tied to companies, and Debian is not, so their
> policies are likely more adapted to our own model.
> 
> Debian way seems to be more pragmatic that Ubuntu/Fedora on that matter.

Indeed, Debian's situation seems closer to ours.

However, a bit more investigation shows that the Debian policy "no enforced 
patents" is not really a written policy and what it means in practice is not 
100% clear. A clarification request [1] has gone unanswered for 1.5 years, and 
"missing" packages x264,lame,xvidcore are sitting in the NEW queue [2] without 
having been accepted or rejected yet (it has "only" been 2.5 months, though).

BTW, other related 'missing' packages in debian are "mjpegtools", "faac", 
"transcode", but the first two are missing due to license reasons instead of 
patent issues:

mjpegtools contains source files that are "All Rights Reserved" by "MPEG/audio 
software simulation group" (Ubuntu has the package in multiverse, Mandriva in 
main)

faac contains a limitation that it is not allowed to be used in software not 
conforming to MPEG-2/MPEG-4 Audio standards, which makes it non-opensource 
(Ubuntu has the package in multiverse, Mandriva doesn't have it).

transcode is missing, but there's been no recent activity on it that would 
explain why it isn't there (IIRC its supported codecs are a subset of ffmpeg 
ones, and ffmpeg is in Debian).

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522373
(note that debian had some encoders disabled in ffmpeg at the time of the 
above report; those have since been enabled)
[2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-14 12:08, Ahmad Samir a écrit :

On 14 October 2010 17:04, Anssi Hannula  wrote:

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:54:45 Dimitrios Glentadakis wrote:

About codecs Codeina will be available in Mageia ? I find it very
comfortable for new and advanced users.


Yes. It is available on Mandriva and I don't see any reason to drop it from
Mageia.

--
Anssi Hannula



But codeina only works with gstreamer based apps IIUC...



However, it does lend legitimacy to the distro. I would also vote to 
keep Codeina both as a useful (if somewhat) source for codecs but also 
for public relations purposes. This is important from a marketing point 
of view.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-14 11:02, Anssi Hannula a écrit :

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 14:29:14 Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2010-10-13 14:23, Michael Scherer a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 20:06 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a écrit :

Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 17:53 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

== And DVDCSS, etc?


What's in etc ?
However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the
Conseil
Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has
statuted that the law could not prevent exception of
decompilation and the exception of circumvention of DRM if this
is for interoperability. In other words the use of libdvdcss is
allowed for interoperability.
So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
interoperability


And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?


It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the
world take the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable
software. Let's give them the liberty to choose as we have the
opportunity here in France to ship such software. No one forces
several company, university, or other groups to mirror ArchLinux,
PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF


So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
ibiblio.org ?


I was actually going to approach a university in Canada this week about
mirroring but I think I will wait till this is sorted out. I don't
believe I could convince them if they read this thread. They would most
definitely have second thoughts.


Indeed, as even Debian/Ubuntu do not ship libdvdcss (e.g. arch, gentoo do)..

As for patents, Ubuntu already has 4 mirrors in Canadian universities.



Yes, Ubuntu is riding a wave of popularism at this point. Their product 
marketing is working quite well. You find/hear of them constantly. It's 
something we should be doing as soon as we publish our first solid 
product. The first release is just testing the infrastructure and 
product so we still have time to organize.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-14 Thread Ahmad Samir

On 14 October 2010 17:04, Anssi Hannula  wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:54:45 Dimitrios Glentadakis wrote:
>> About codecs Codeina will be available in Mageia ? I find it very
>> comfortable for new and advanced users.
>
> Yes. It is available on Mandriva and I don't see any reason to drop it from
> Mageia.
>
> --
> Anssi Hannula
>

But codeina only works with gstreamer based apps IIUC...

-- 
Ahmad Samir

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:54:45 Dimitrios Glentadakis wrote:
> About codecs Codeina will be available in Mageia ? I find it very
> comfortable for new and advanced users.

Yes. It is available on Mandriva and I don't see any reason to drop it from 
Mageia.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 14:29:14 Marc Paré wrote:
> Le 2010-10-13 14:23, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 20:06 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> >> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> >>> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 17:53 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> > == And DVDCSS, etc?
>  
>  What's in etc ?
>  However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the
>  Conseil
>  Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has
>  statuted that the law could not prevent exception of
>  decompilation and the exception of circumvention of DRM if this
>  is for interoperability. In other words the use of libdvdcss is
>  allowed for interoperability.
>  So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
>  interoperability
> >>> 
> >>> And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?
> >> 
> >> It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the
> >> world take the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable
> >> software. Let's give them the liberty to choose as we have the
> >> opportunity here in France to ship such software. No one forces
> >> several company, university, or other groups to mirror ArchLinux,
> >> PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF
> > 
> > So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
> > ibiblio.org ?
> 
> I was actually going to approach a university in Canada this week about
> mirroring but I think I will wait till this is sorted out. I don't
> believe I could convince them if they read this thread. They would most
> definitely have second thoughts.

Indeed, as even Debian/Ubuntu do not ship libdvdcss (e.g. arch, gentoo do)..

As for patents, Ubuntu already has 4 mirrors in Canadian universities.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-14 Thread Tux99

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Anssi Hannula wrote:

> > Oops, didn't notice the above posts were about DRM only, not patents...
> > anyway, ibiblio contains such distros as well.
> 
> BTW, according to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(f) circumvention of protection measures 
> is allowed if it is necessary to achieve interoperability with other software.
> 
> Of course, this may not apply to CSS...

I don't know if you read the following article, but it looks like even 
in the US the laws are actually much less strict now, than people seem 
to think:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/billington-opens-new-dmca-loopholes/6942

I'd say this is another strong argument towards including libdvdcss 
on the CD/DVD of the Mageia distro.

(Regardless of my opinion that we should only care about French law 
anyway)

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Thursday 14 October 2010 11:34:30 Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Anssi Hannula kirjoitti torstai, 14. lokakuuta 2010 11:07:04:
> > Michael Scherer kirjoitti:
> > > Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 Ã  20:06 +0200, Olivier MÃ©jean a Ã©crit :
> > >> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a Ã©crit :
> > >> > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 Ã  17:53 +0200, Olivier MÃ©jean a Ã©crit :
> > >> > > the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> > >> > > So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > interoperability
> > >> > 
> > >> > And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?
> > >> 
> > >> It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the
> > >> world take
> > >> the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable software.
> > >> Let's
> > >> give
> > >> them the liberty to choose as we have the opportunity here in
> > >> France to ship
> > >> such software. No one forces several company, university, or other
> > >> groups to
> > >> mirror ArchLinux, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF
> > > 
> > > So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to
> > > replace
> > > ibiblio.org ?
> > 
> > Well, ibiblio.org contains other distros that contain patented software
> > (like arch and debian), and dvdcss (arch), and more than likely many
> > others:
> > ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/
> 
> Oops, didn't notice the above posts were about DRM only, not patents...
> anyway, ibiblio contains such distros as well.

BTW, according to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(f) circumvention of protection measures 
is allowed if it is necessary to achieve interoperability with other software.

Of course, this may not apply to CSS...

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Anssi Hannula kirjoitti torstai, 14. lokakuuta 2010 11:07:04:
> Michael Scherer kirjoitti:
> > Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 Ã  20:06 +0200, Olivier MÃ©jean a Ã©crit :
> >> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a Ã©crit :
> >> > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 Ã  17:53 +0200, Olivier MÃ©jean a Ã©crit :
> >> > > > == And DVDCSS, etc?
> >> > > 
> >> > > What's in etc ?
> >> > > However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
> >> > > Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted
> >> 
> >> that
> >> 
> >> > > the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the
> >> 
> >> exception
> >> 
> >> > > of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other
> >> 
> >> words
> >> 
> >> > > the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> >> > > So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
> >> > > interoperability
> >> > 
> >> > And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?
> >> 
> >> It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the world
> >> take
> >> the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable software. Let's
> >> give
> >> them the liberty to choose as we have the opportunity here in France to
> >> ship
> >> such software. No one forces several company, university, or other
> >> groups to
> >> mirror ArchLinux, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF
> > 
> > So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
> > ibiblio.org ?
> 
> Well, ibiblio.org contains other distros that contain patented software
> (like arch and debian), and dvdcss (arch), and more than likely many
> others:
> ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/

Oops, didn't notice the above posts were about DRM only, not patents... 
anyway, ibiblio contains such distros as well.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Michael Scherer kirjoitti:
> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 Ã  20:06 +0200, Olivier MÃ©jean a Ã©crit :
>> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a Ã©crit :
>> > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 Ã  17:53 +0200, Olivier MÃ©jean a Ã©crit :
>> > > > == And DVDCSS, etc?
>> > >
>> > > What's in etc ?
>> > > However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
>> > > Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted
>> that
>> > > the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the
>> exception
>> > > of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other
>> words
>> > > the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
>> > > So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
>> > > interoperability
>> >
>> > And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?
>>
>> It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the world
>> take
>> the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable software. Let's
>> give
>> them the liberty to choose as we have the opportunity here in France to
>> ship
>> such software. No one forces several company, university, or other
>> groups to
>> mirror ArchLinux, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF
>
> So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
> ibiblio.org ?

Well, ibiblio.org contains other distros that contain patented software
(like arch and debian), and dvdcss (arch), and more than likely many
others:
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/

(note: I'm still not suggesting having or not having such software, just
noting this fact)

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc





I was actually going to approach a university in Canada this week about
mirroring but I think I will wait till this is sorted out. I don't
believe I could convince them if they read this thread. They would most
definitely have second thoughts.


Well, then you can simply be clear with them and ask them to see their
boss/lawyers/whatever who can decide.

After all, I do not see why no one directly asked to mirror admins
first.



I am not sure that if I were to approach them and ask, as a favour, to 
mirror Mageia, to then ask them to check with their lawyers etc., that 
this would make for a good argument for them or give them too much of a 
feeling of trust. They would just not want to talk.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 14:44, Sinner from the Prairy a écrit :

Wolfgang Bornath wrote:


It's easy to communicate, it's easy to implement fitting even those
"dumb" users some people are talking about. Yesterday I installed the
new Ubuntu 10.10, a window opened near the end of the installation
process telling me that my hardware may need/use a non-free driver
which is available online. The text explains about the non-free status
in simple words and then I was asked if I wanted to activate this
non-free driver.
The same can be done with all that codec stuff. A window opens,
telling the user that he will need some special software to listen to
MP3s, watch his commercial DVDs, etc. The text explains in simple
words the legal implications which may or may not apply to his
country. After that he can decide with a simple mouse click on yes or
no or "ask later" (if he has no working internet connection at that
time. If he clicks on "activate", the needed software will be
downloaded and installed. If he clicks on "ask later" he will be asked
as soon as the script detects a working internet connection.
If he has selected "No" and still tries to open a commecrial DVD (or
whatever) the window ill appear again reminding him why he can't play
the DVD (or whatever).

Face it: we do not have any other choice but leave it at the user's
decision. All we can do is make it simple if he chooses to bite the
bullet.


Wolfgang,

Well done. Even I understood that.

Mageia, as a foundation, will be separated form legal proceedings by passing
the burden of the decision to the end user, as a flexible way of
acknowledging that laws are not the same everywhere, and the end-user will
(should) be better informed than an automated script of what is allowed and
not. And if the end user decides to "break the law", it is the end user's
responsibility.

Salut,
Sinner




At issue here, in the discussion, was the method of delivery. Wolfgang 
wrote of the Ubuntu method which seems also fine to me. Having repos 
where contentious software packages were kept (just like PLF) was 
another method. Others suggested that Mageia repos should just offer up 
everything regardless of legal implications. Have I missed any other 
methods?


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Dimitrios Glentadakis

About codecs Codeina will be available in Mageia ? I find it very
comfortable for new and advanced users.



-- 
Dimitrios Glentadakis

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Sinner from the Prairy

Michael Scherer wrote:

> So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
> ibiblio.org ?

I'm pretty sure ibiblio.org will host Mageia mirror.

Salut,
Sinner

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Sinner from the Prairy

Wolfgang Bornath wrote:

> It's easy to communicate, it's easy to implement fitting even those
> "dumb" users some people are talking about. Yesterday I installed the
> new Ubuntu 10.10, a window opened near the end of the installation
> process telling me that my hardware may need/use a non-free driver
> which is available online. The text explains about the non-free status
> in simple words and then I was asked if I wanted to activate this
> non-free driver.
> The same can be done with all that codec stuff. A window opens,
> telling the user that he will need some special software to listen to
> MP3s, watch his commercial DVDs, etc. The text explains in simple
> words the legal implications which may or may not apply to his
> country. After that he can decide with a simple mouse click on yes or
> no or "ask later" (if he has no working internet connection at that
> time. If he clicks on "activate", the needed software will be
> downloaded and installed. If he clicks on "ask later" he will be asked
> as soon as the script detects a working internet connection.
> If he has selected "No" and still tries to open a commecrial DVD (or
> whatever) the window ill appear again reminding him why he can't play
> the DVD (or whatever).
> 
> Face it: we do not have any other choice but leave it at the user's
> decision. All we can do is make it simple if he chooses to bite the
> bullet.

Wolfgang,

Well done. Even I understood that.

Mageia, as a foundation, will be separated form legal proceedings by passing 
the burden of the decision to the end user, as a flexible way of 
acknowledging that laws are not the same everywhere, and the end-user will 
(should) be better informed than an automated script of what is allowed and 
not. And if the end user decides to "break the law", it is the end user's 
responsibility.

Salut,
Sinner

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 14:29 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
> Le 2010-10-13 14:23, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 20:06 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> >> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> >>> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 17:53 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> > == And DVDCSS, etc?
> 
>  What's in etc ?
>  However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
>  Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that
>  the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception
>  of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words
>  the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
>  So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
>  interoperability
> >>>
> >>> And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?
> >>
> >> It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the world 
> >> take
> >> the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable software. Let's give
> >> them the liberty to choose as we have the opportunity here in France to 
> >> ship
> >> such software. No one forces several company, university, or other groups 
> >> to
> >> mirror ArchLinux, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF
> >
> > So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
> > ibiblio.org ?
> >
> 
> I was actually going to approach a university in Canada this week about 
> mirroring but I think I will wait till this is sorted out. I don't 
> believe I could convince them if they read this thread. They would most 
> definitely have second thoughts.

Well, then you can simply be clear with them and ask them to see their
boss/lawyers/whatever who can decide. 

After all, I do not see why no one directly asked to mirror admins
first.

-- 
Michael Scherer

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 14:23, Michael Scherer a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 20:06 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a écrit :

Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 17:53 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

== And DVDCSS, etc?


What's in etc ?
However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that
the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception
of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words
the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
interoperability


And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?


It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the world take
the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable software. Let's give
them the liberty to choose as we have the opportunity here in France to ship
such software. No one forces several company, university, or other groups to
mirror ArchLinux, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF


So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
ibiblio.org ?



I was actually going to approach a university in Canada this week about 
mirroring but I think I will wait till this is sorted out. I don't 
believe I could convince them if they read this thread. They would most 
definitely have second thoughts.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 à 20:06 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 19:31:44, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 17:53 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> > > > == And DVDCSS, etc?
> > > 
> > > What's in etc ?
> > > However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
> > > Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that
> > > the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception
> > > of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words
> > > the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> > > So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
> > > interoperability
> > 
> > And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?
> 
> It's their own responsability, no one force them, and some in the world take 
> the responsability to host mirrors with questionnable software. Let's give 
> them the liberty to choose as we have the opportunity here in France to ship 
> such software. No one forces several company, university, or other groups to 
> mirror ArchLinux, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, PLF

So I assume that you volunteer to find another Tier 1 mirror to replace
ibiblio.org ? 

-- 
Michael Scherer

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> Hi all!
> 
> Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning we 
> should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> 
> Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in this post, 
> only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
> 
> Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I have one):
> 
> == Do we want a separated core repository?
> 
> No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
> Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)

How do we decide what would be in core ?


> == How are the sections named? :)
> 
> I think I'm in favor of renaming 'contrib' to 'extra'.

+1, if we decide to keep contrib


> == Where do firmware without license go (DVB, V4L, etc)?
> 
> To unsupported non-free repository: Ubuntu (multiverse) [1],
> To unsupported repository without binary packages: Arch (AUR)
> Nowhere: Debian, Fedora, Opensuse, Mandriva
> 
> I guess for this one I'd prefer a helper draktool to handle/download these 
> instead of shipping them ourselves.

If there is no licence, I would say "Nowhere". This is just illegal
under most country laws, despites likely to be uneforced by
rightholders. So, even if I think the legal risk is low, I would say
"no" because this is a question of free software ethics more than laws.

> 
> == What about patents?
> 
> Almost no software with patents: Fedora, Opensuse
>  - Essentially no media codecs except theora/vorbis/ogg/vp8 etc.
>  - Strange exception: libXft, Cairo and Qt4 are shipped with LCD filtering
>support enabled, even if it is disabled in freetype
> 
> No software with enforced patents: Debian
>  - not included (at least): x264 (encoder), lame mp3 (encoder)
>  - included (at least): MPEG/x decoders, H.264 decoders, MP3 decoders,
>AAC decoders, AMR decoders, DTS decoders, AC3 decoders,
>WMV/WMA decoders, realvideo decoders, etc
> 
> Some software covered by patents not included: Mandriva
>  - see below for more information
> 
> All software covered by patents allowed: Arch, Ubuntu
> 
> 
> IMO we should alter our policy to match either Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu.. The 
> Mandriva policy makes no sense (for example, no AAC decoder but yes for H.264 
> decoder and MPEG-4 encoder?).
> I'm really not sure which way we should go, though. WDYT?

I would go the Debian way. 
Ubuntu and Fedora are tied to companies, and Debian is not, so their
policies are likely more adapted to our own model.

Debian way seems to be more pragmatic that Ubuntu/Fedora on that matter.

> == Do we allow P2P file transfer software?
> 
> Yes: Arch, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu
> No, except torrents: Mandriva
> Unknown, at least torrents allowed: Opensuse

I would say "yes". The reason of the rule in Mandriva was unclear and
not justified, IMHO.

Afaik, it was just "there is lots of lawsuits going on this, let's
forbid it". Maybe if someone can get in touch with Lenny, he can explain
us, but I think this was not baked by anything.

> 
> == And gaming emulators?
> 
> Allowed: Arch, Debian, Ubuntu
> Mostly no, but at least fuse-emulator is shipped: Fedora
> Unknown, but lots of them are in OBS 'Emulators' project (unofficial but in 
> official mirrors): Opensuse
> No, but at least zsnes is shipped: Mandriva

Well, why separate gamin emulator from regular emulator ?

The legal risk is near zero in both case, given the few cases since 10
years. Sony lost the lawsuit against Bleem
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem! ), and again Connectix
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Game_Station ). 

The only recent case I can think of is when Nintendo asked to Youtube
and Apple to remove a application that looked like a DS. Given the speed
of Apple and Youtube to remove contents and software, we cannot consider
this as a legal basis for anything.


>From what I have seen, emulators are much likely to be dropped because
they are unmaintained than others reasons. 

And Fedora rational about this
( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Emulators ) is IMHO
weak. I know people who play to the game they bought on their console, I
know people who play to game they developed, and we even have people who
ported linux ( like dslinux, but the site seems down ).

So I would align on Debian policy ( and as the zsnes maintainer, I have
no idea of why it was allowed in contrib while the others one didn't ).

-- 
Michael Scherer

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 à 17:53 +0200, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

> > 
> > == And DVDCSS, etc?
> 
> What's in etc ?
> However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil 
> Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that the 
> law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception of 
> circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words the use 
> of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for interoperability

And for the people hosting mirrors outside of France ?

Shall we forget them ?

> About codec, you may know that VLC is based in France and hosts some projects 
> useful for interoperability. Since the start of the project in 1996, i don't 
> remember VLC being sued for such projects. So let's provide codec by default 
> with Mageia for a better "user experience" :)

"no one has been sued yet" is not a real argument.

No one sued mplayer developers for distributing binary copyrighted
codecs. No one sued http://www.dll-files.com/ , despites distributing
windows dlls. 

Yet, what they do is a clear violation of various copyright treaties.

So no, the fact that no one has been sued is not a reason to do the
same.

-- 
Michael Scherer

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Florian Hubold


 Am 13.10.2010 19:04, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:


The same can be done with all that codec stuff. A window opens,
telling the user that he will need some special software to listen to
MP3s, watch his commercial DVDs, etc. The text explains in simple
words the legal implications which may or may not apply to his
country. After that he can decide with a simple mouse click on yes or
no or "ask later" (if he has no working internet connection at that
time. If he clicks on "activate", the needed software will be
downloaded and installed. If he clicks on "ask later" he will be asked
as soon as the script detects a working internet connection.
If he has selected "No" and still tries to open a commecrial DVD (or
whatever) the window ill appear again reminding him why he can't play
the DVD (or whatever).

Face it: we do not have any other choice but leave it at the user's
decision. All we can do is make it simple if he chooses to bite the
bullet.

That's exactly what i meant, just expressed a little better :)

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 13:04, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :

2010/10/13 Marc Paré:


Yes, I have always seen this as a communication problem from the Mandriva
documentation. However, it did fit the "at arm's length" legal definition of
the installation of these pieces of software. That is to mean that Mandriva,
in this case, was not complicit in the installation of that particular
software. It was clearly a user decision to install them.


+1

It's easy to communicate, it's easy to implement fitting even those
"dumb" users some people are talking about. Yesterday I installed the
new Ubuntu 10.10, a window opened near the end of the installation
process telling me that my hardware may need/use a non-free driver
which is available online. The text explains about the non-free status
in simple words and then I was asked if I wanted to activate this
non-free driver.
The same can be done with all that codec stuff. A window opens,
telling the user that he will need some special software to listen to
MP3s, watch his commercial DVDs, etc. The text explains in simple
words the legal implications which may or may not apply to his
country. After that he can decide with a simple mouse click on yes or
no or "ask later" (if he has no working internet connection at that
time. If he clicks on "activate", the needed software will be
downloaded and installed. If he clicks on "ask later" he will be asked
as soon as the script detects a working internet connection.
If he has selected "No" and still tries to open a commecrial DVD (or
whatever) the window ill appear again reminding him why he can't play
the DVD (or whatever).

Face it: we do not have any other choice but leave it at the user's
decision. All we can do is make it simple if he chooses to bite the
bullet.



This sounds like a good alternative also. I like this method too! The 
user is always in control.


This thread is actually good in getting different scenarios of 
implementing "legally grey" software packages. Maybe someone will take 
notes of the different methods that could be used to deliver these type 
of software packages and then the devs or the higher ups will obviously 
make the final decision after considering all of these "delivery" methods.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Wolfgang Bornath

2010/10/13 Marc Paré :
>
> Yes, I have always seen this as a communication problem from the Mandriva
> documentation. However, it did fit the "at arm's length" legal definition of
> the installation of these pieces of software. That is to mean that Mandriva,
> in this case, was not complicit in the installation of that particular
> software. It was clearly a user decision to install them.

+1

It's easy to communicate, it's easy to implement fitting even those
"dumb" users some people are talking about. Yesterday I installed the
new Ubuntu 10.10, a window opened near the end of the installation
process telling me that my hardware may need/use a non-free driver
which is available online. The text explains about the non-free status
in simple words and then I was asked if I wanted to activate this
non-free driver.
The same can be done with all that codec stuff. A window opens,
telling the user that he will need some special software to listen to
MP3s, watch his commercial DVDs, etc. The text explains in simple
words the legal implications which may or may not apply to his
country. After that he can decide with a simple mouse click on yes or
no or "ask later" (if he has no working internet connection at that
time. If he clicks on "activate", the needed software will be
downloaded and installed. If he clicks on "ask later" he will be asked
as soon as the script detects a working internet connection.
If he has selected "No" and still tries to open a commecrial DVD (or
whatever) the window ill appear again reminding him why he can't play
the DVD (or whatever).

Face it: we do not have any other choice but leave it at the user's
decision. All we can do is make it simple if he chooses to bite the
bullet.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Florian Hubold


 Am 12.10.2010 17:02, schrieb Anssi Hannula:

Hi all!

Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning we
should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?

My 2 cents:

Generally i would like to avoid a seperation like main/contrib in mandriva,
but it would be nice to differentiate between free/non-free, this may not
be done through seperate repos, but with some packaging magic like added
metadata or some other dirty tricks ;) so that it is possible to have
a free/libre install out-of-the box, asking during installation.

Or maybe always do a free/libre default install, and afterwards on the first
boot with mageia, and after having set up repos, give the user the choice
to have all codecs/multimedia stuff automatically installed by a package
task-multimedia-magic, but presenting him an overview what that choice
could mean: patent infringement, dmca-like stuff and so on.

So every user gets a free/libre default install, but automatically the
choice to be able to play all sorts of multimedia files.

Moreover what i think would be more important to not make something
like with Mandriva/PLF, so that users get these by default, but
maybe deactivated.

There should be no bigger 3rd party repositories necessary, IMHO.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 12:14, herman a écrit :

Le 2010-10-13 10:58, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 16:49:35, Marc Paré a écrit :

Le 2010-10-13 10:29, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 15:44:27, Sinner from the Prairy a écrit :

Marc Paré wrote:

I think pre-selected Country installs would just be too hard to
coordinate, laws change. Free and non-free is pretty simple.


My tuppence worth:
Mageia should not distribute non-Free code.  However, Mageia could
provide a wizard to enable users to easily install audio and video
codecs and utilities from online repositories at Zarb.org.  That way, it
is the responsibility of the user to check his own legal status.



However, in this case, Mageia would be complicit in the installation 
process. IMHO, I think that if the information on how/where to get the 
information on how to install these missing pieces were available to the 
user, this would be a safer legal route.



The Mandriva install system does not make it easy enough.  It requires
that a user figure out which codecs and stuff he needs, which is a kind
of a black art.  I have done it many times, but it is painful.



Yes, I have always seen this as a communication problem from the 
Mandriva documentation. However, it did fit the "at arm's length" legal 
definition of the installation of these pieces of software. That is to 
mean that Mandriva, in this case, was not complicit in the installation 
of that particular software. It was clearly a user decision to install them.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread herman

> Le 2010-10-13 10:58, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 16:49:35, Marc Paré a écrit :
> >> Le 2010-10-13 10:29, Olivier Méjean a écrit :
> >>> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 15:44:27, Sinner from the Prairy a écrit :
>  Marc Paré wrote:
> > I think pre-selected Country installs would just be too hard to
> > coordinate, laws change. Free and non-free is pretty simple.

My tuppence worth:
Mageia should not distribute non-Free code.  However, Mageia could
provide a wizard to enable users to easily install audio and video
codecs and utilities from online repositories at Zarb.org.  That way, it
is the responsibility of the user to check his own legal status.

The Mandriva install system does not make it easy enough.  It requires
that a user figure out which codecs and stuff he needs, which is a kind
of a black art.  I have done it many times, but it is painful.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 10:58, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 16:49:35, Marc Paré a écrit :

Le 2010-10-13 10:29, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 15:44:27, Sinner from the Prairy a écrit :

Marc Paré wrote:

I think pre-selected Country installs would just be too hard to
coordinate, laws change. Free and non-free is pretty simple.

Marc


+1

My thoughts exactly.

Salut,
Sinner


Linux Mint provides an ISO without codec
http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php
(btw some good ideas about ISO, like an OEM ISO). It nicely named
"linuxmint-9-gnome-usa-japan-i386.iso" which just focus on 2 countries
;-)

What's just funny is that we looking for mirrors of Linux Mint, there :
http://linuxmint.com/mirrors.php several are located in USA, you can find
a company, yellowfiber located in Virginia (if i am not wrong, VA =
Virginia) with a legal contact in California, you can also find a mirror
located in the University of Tennessee, and both (and others in USA)
provide all ISOs (yellowfiber also provides a mirror for ArchLinux which
contains libdvdcss)

So companies, universities in USA provide softwares that we are here
discussing if we can ship or not (and i don't want to insist, but
Mageia.org is not located in USA). Maybe they are more aware of laws
than we are, or are they taking too much risks ?

Olivier


Bonjour Olivier (from my side of the Atlantic)

  From what I can say from a couple of discussion list maintainers at
local universities, they are aware of the laws somewhat and are taking
risks (their rationale -- you can always ask for forgiveness after you
have done it).

Re: Mint's OEM ISO -- I like this idea!

Marc


So they take risk being aware (and also being in USA), i then think Mageia
should provide codec and related tools (moreover being outside of USA) since
risk is much lower (and we can also produce an ISO without those codecs)

Olivier



Sorry, I am speaking from a Canadian perspective. That may make a 
difference.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 10:49, andré a écrit :

Tux99 a écrit :

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, [UTF-8] Marc ParÃ© wrote:


Le 2010-10-12 22:04, Tux99 a Ã©crit :

According to your logic that would mean we can't include ssh,
openssl, pgp,
and even https support in any browser.
Does that seems reasonable to you?

You need to face it, it would be impossible to make a distro that is
legal
in every country of the world and at the same time is of any use to the
users.
Therefore I don't see the need why we should comply with US patent laws
when we don't comply with for example Chinese encryption laws.


All of your points are exactly what I am trying to point out and even
reinforce my concerns. These are all true. This is why, in my opinion,
the Mageia distro should not be installing all of these controversial
software packages by default.

Are you seriously suggesting Mageia should produce a distro without ssh,
openssl and even with all browsers stripped of https support?

I can imagine how popular that would be with the majority of users...


This would then remove that layer of liability from the Mageia
project group. In my opinion, Mageia should be wary in wanting to
install a fully functioning distro if this means using software packages
that may get it into trouble (Mageia itself).

But here lies the mistake in your reasoning. Mageia doesn't have to
exclude all those packages, since the only liability Mageia has, is
towards the French laws.

So the sensible choice is to base the choice of packages to include on
French law. It is up to the user to make sure he/she only installs and
uses packages that are legal in his/her country.


Excuse me if I'm wrong -- but you seem to be arguing at cross purposes.
Marc says don't install codecs by default, and Tux99 (and many others)
say codecs must be included in the distro so the user can choose to
install them.
Simple solution - include them in the distro, but not installed by default.
Where is the problem ?

To make things easier, maybe we should put seriously threatened software
in the non-free section ? (I mean software which is *known* to have
problems, not those just *rumoured* to have.)
In any case, I would certainly avoid excluding useful codecs from the
distribution ISOs.

By the way, it is not only what is permitted in France, but also what is
permitted in the countries where the mirrors are hosted. Here in Canada,
there is (no longer) a mirror for Mandriva, so the nearest Mandriva
mirrors are in the U.S.

A few years back, the U.S. restricted severely encryption, unlike in
Canada and most of the rest of the world. So to have normal encryption
with Mozilla software, we in Canada had to download Mozilla from Europe,
since there were at that time no mirrors for Mozilla in Canada. Luckily
the U.S. no longer has such restrictions.
Having to download an entire distro from Europe would be much more
problematic.
So it is useful to consider the laws in likely mirror locations.
For North America, Canada is always a good choice :)

my 2 cents:)

- André (andre999)



Yes, all of this would be a fine middle ground in my opinion.

Re: Canadian repos -- U. of Sherbrook (Québec, Canada) dropped the 
Mandriva mirrors for unknown reason (I suspect that the person who had a 
personal interest in maintaining these just moved on). I was however 
pleasantly surprised to see that U. of Waterloo offering the Mandriva 
KDE 4.5.0 updates on their servers. We may be able to convince them to 
mirror the Mageia project on their servers. I may be able to help as I 
live in Wateloo (no contacts at the U. of Waterloo though), more at the 
other university Wilfrid Laurier.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread andré


Romain d'Alverny a écrit :

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:50, Marc Paré  wrote:
   

Let the user then assume that responsibility/liability.
This is where, I consider the "easy urpmi" served its purpose well. It
installed repos where the available software that most users would need was
made available, but this again was by user choice.
 

I don't really see how this would "fix" the issue; by using a
third-party repository (plf or through easy urpmi) you just move the
concerns to another provider:
  - if the user is liable anyway, having a single or several providers
doesn't matter;
  - if the user is not liable anyway, having several providers only
moves the liability from one provider to the other one.

This particular point, about _patented_ software is a tricky one
indeed. Dealing with local/international laws is tricky. Especially
when both change over time.

However, first point is not to mix different issues here:
  - supported software and not-supported (and what means "supported")
  - free vs. non-free/proprietary software (as in FSF/OSI definitions)
  - gratis vs. paid software
  - for non-free software, distribution/usage cases may be tricky
(skype, opera for instance)
  - software implementation/distribution that violates/have to comply
specific laws (encryption, DRMs)
  - for patented software/methods, implementation/distribution/usage
cases are tricky as well (a patent may or may not block you from using
the method, depends on who holds the patent and for what purpose).
  - maybe more with more details; Anssi pretty much defined categories
in his first message here.

We definitely can't say bluntly "let's ignore all laws because we
can't enforce them all". We must define our policies for what goes in
Mageia repositories, what stays out, what goes out (and why). These
policies must align with (and be part of) Mageia values and direction.


Cheers,

Romain
   

A good summary of the issues involved

- André (andre999)

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 10:29, Olivier Méjean a écrit :

Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 15:44:27, Sinner from the Prairy a écrit :

Marc Paré wrote:

I think pre-selected Country installs would just be too hard to
coordinate, laws change. Free and non-free is pretty simple.

Marc


+1

My thoughts exactly.

Salut,
Sinner


Linux Mint provides an ISO without codec
http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php
(btw some good ideas about ISO, like an OEM ISO). It nicely named
"linuxmint-9-gnome-usa-japan-i386.iso" which just focus on 2 countries ;-)

What's just funny is that we looking for mirrors of Linux Mint, there :
http://linuxmint.com/mirrors.php several are located in USA, you can find a
company, yellowfiber located in Virginia (if i am not wrong, VA = Virginia)
with a legal contact in California, you can also find a mirror located in the
University of Tennessee, and both (and others in USA) provide all ISOs
(yellowfiber also provides a mirror for ArchLinux which contains libdvdcss)

So companies, universities in USA provide softwares that we are here
discussing if we can ship or not (and i don't want to insist, but Mageia.org
is not located in USA). Maybe they are more aware of laws than we are, or are
they taking too much risks ?

Olivier



Bonjour Olivier (from my side of the Atlantic)

From what I can say from a couple of discussion list maintainers at 
local universities, they are aware of the laws somewhat and are taking 
risks (their rationale -- you can always ask for forgiveness after you 
have done it).


Re: Mint's OEM ISO -- I like this idea!

Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread andré


Tux99 a écrit :

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, [UTF-8] Marc ParÃ© wrote:

   

Le 2010-10-12 22:04, Tux99 a Ã©crit :
 

According to your logic that would mean we can't include ssh, openssl, pgp,
and even https support in any browser.
Does that seems reasonable to you?

You need to face it, it would be impossible to make a distro that is legal
in every country of the world and at the same time is of any use to the
users.
Therefore I don't see the need why we should comply with US patent laws
when we don't comply with for example Chinese encryption laws.

   

All of your points are exactly what I am trying to point out and even
reinforce my concerns. These are all true. This is why, in my opinion,
the Mageia distro should not be installing all of these controversial
software packages by default.
 

Are you seriously suggesting Mageia should produce a distro without ssh,
openssl and even with all browsers stripped of https support?

I can imagine how popular that would be with the majority of users...

   

This would then remove that layer of liability from the Mageia
project group. In my opinion, Mageia should be wary in wanting to
install a fully functioning distro if this means using software packages
that may get it into trouble (Mageia itself).
 

But here lies the mistake in your reasoning. Mageia doesn't have to
exclude all those packages, since the only liability Mageia has, is
towards the French laws.

So the sensible choice is to base the choice of packages to include on
French law. It is up to the user to make sure he/she only installs and
uses packages that are legal in his/her country.
   


Excuse me if I'm wrong -- but you seem to be arguing at cross purposes.
Marc says don't install codecs by default, and Tux99 (and many others) 
say codecs must be included in the distro so the user can choose to 
install them.

Simple solution - include them in the distro, but not installed by default.
Where is the problem ?

To make things easier, maybe we should put seriously threatened software 
in the non-free section ?  (I mean software which is *known* to have 
problems, not those just *rumoured* to have.)
In any case, I would certainly avoid excluding useful codecs from the 
distribution ISOs.


By the way, it is not only what is permitted in France, but also what is 
permitted in the countries where the mirrors are hosted.  Here in 
Canada, there is (no longer) a mirror for Mandriva, so the nearest 
Mandriva mirrors are in the U.S.


A few years back, the U.S. restricted severely encryption, unlike in 
Canada and most of the rest of the world.  So to have normal encryption 
with Mozilla software, we in Canada had to download Mozilla from Europe, 
since there were at that time no mirrors for Mozilla in Canada.  Luckily 
the U.S. no longer has such restrictions.
Having to download an entire distro from Europe would be much more 
problematic.

So it is useful to consider the laws in likely mirror locations.
For North America, Canada is always a good choice :)

my 2 cents:)

- André (andre999)

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Thierry Vignaud

On 13 October 2010 16:29, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
> So companies, universities in USA provide softwares that we are here
> discussing if we can ship or not (and i don't want to insist, but Mageia.org
> is not located in USA). Maybe they are more aware of laws than we are, or are
> they taking too much risks ?

They obviously are not aware of such issues.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Ahmad Samir

On 13 October 2010 15:34, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
> Le mercredi 13 octobre 2010 10:19:17, Buchan Milne a écrit :
>> On Tuesday, 12 October 2010 17:52:58 Tux99 wrote:
>> > Quote: marc wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 18:42
>> >
>> > > Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install
>> > > legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are not
>> > >
>> > > installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.
>> >
>> > How do you expect Mageia to verify each single package to make sure it
>> > complies with the laws in ALL countries of the world?
>>
>> So, because we can't comply with all laws in all coutnries, we should
>> violate everyone we possibly can?
>
> Because we can't be aware of all laws in all countries, we should do nothing ?
> (after all that's the best way to break no law at all !)
>
>>
>> > Mageia should make sure that the packages comply with French law, but
>> > that's it.
>>
>> If Mageia wants mirrors in countries with strong IP protection laws
>> (including copyright, software patent) and anti-circumvention laws, then
>> IMHO, there does need to be a split, so mirror maintainers can decide
>> which risks they can accept.
>>
>> For example, in the DMCA case, I believe US mirrors hosting libdvdcss could
>> be vulnerable.
>
> There are mirrors of plf in USA, there is at least one mirror of ArchLinux in
> USA that provides libdvdcss, there is at least one mirror of Linux Mint in the
> USA that provides libdvdcss, there is PCLinuxOS based in USA (Texas ?) that
> provides libdvdcss
>
> VLC is available in USA to download (cnet.com) and VLC provides its own lib
> for decoding (and coding) multimedia files (and from what i know, windows
> binaries come with libdvdcss)
>

There's a difference between "they can't be sued out of their homes"
and "they can be sued, just no one's done it yet". As with any legal
issues, it's always a CYA situation.

>>
>> > You can still install Mageia and then remove the packages that are
>> > problematic in your country, I very much doubt your laws are that
>> > draconian that you can't even do that.
>> > Mageia could include an option during install to exclude the well-known
>> > problematic packages from installation to make this easier for people
>> > that live in countries with restrictive laws.
>> >
>> > > When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where the
>> > >
>> > > PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.
>> >
>> > This is a major hassle for new/inexperienced users and IMHO should be
>> > avoided.
>>
>> Maybe it can be improved *to some extent*, by asking the user if they want
>> to add additional repositories.
>
> We cannot ask users to add third-part repos. We have discussing about Mageia
> repos, policies of third-part repos should not be in our discussion.
>

If we want to ask users to add 3rd party repos, then 3rd party repos
are already a part of this discussion.

-- 
Ahmad Samir

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Sinner from the Prairy

Marc Paré wrote:

> I think pre-selected Country installs would just be too hard to
> coordinate, laws change. Free and non-free is pretty simple.
> 
> Marc

+1

My thoughts exactly.

Salut,
Sinner

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Romain d'Alverny

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:50, Marc Paré  wrote:
> Let the user then assume that responsibility/liability.
> This is where, I consider the "easy urpmi" served its purpose well. It
> installed repos where the available software that most users would need was
> made available, but this again was by user choice.

I don't really see how this would "fix" the issue; by using a
third-party repository (plf or through easy urpmi) you just move the
concerns to another provider:
 - if the user is liable anyway, having a single or several providers
doesn't matter;
 - if the user is not liable anyway, having several providers only
moves the liability from one provider to the other one.

This particular point, about _patented_ software is a tricky one
indeed. Dealing with local/international laws is tricky. Especially
when both change over time.

However, first point is not to mix different issues here:
 - supported software and not-supported (and what means "supported")
 - free vs. non-free/proprietary software (as in FSF/OSI definitions)
 - gratis vs. paid software
 - for non-free software, distribution/usage cases may be tricky
(skype, opera for instance)
 - software implementation/distribution that violates/have to comply
specific laws (encryption, DRMs)
 - for patented software/methods, implementation/distribution/usage
cases are tricky as well (a patent may or may not block you from using
the method, depends on who holds the patent and for what purpose).
 - maybe more with more details; Anssi pretty much defined categories
in his first message here.

We definitely can't say bluntly "let's ignore all laws because we
can't enforce them all". We must define our policies for what goes in
Mageia repositories, what stays out, what goes out (and why). These
policies must align with (and be part of) Mageia values and direction.


Cheers,

Romain

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-13 Thread Lucien-Henry Horvath


 Le 13/10/2010 04:04, Tux99 a écrit :

Regardless of all that, it is ALWAYS the user's (not the distro makers)
responsibility to comply with local laws of where the distro is being
installed/used
In fact, if you make a distro law compliant with all countries and tell 
that to users, you can open the way to this case :
The user can claim that he was in confidence to apply the law of his 
"ABC country" (US for example ;-) )  because he used Mageia ... As 
Mageia had claimed it was compliant with all laws ... therefore it was 
compliant with the law of it's country ABC. If Mageia make a mistake in 
it's law compliancy ... it take a risk, and the association take a risk 
... and the developpers of Mageia taking a risk of a pursuit in the 
country ABC.


So ... a good reason to choice to not be compliant will all law, but 
only 1 law well understood by the association.
After, a local Mageia-ABC-association can tell wich package replace for 
compliancy with ABC law ...

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-13 01:14, Tux99 a écrit :

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, [UTF-8] Marc ParÃ© wrote:


Le 2010-10-12 22:04, Tux99 a Ã©crit :


According to your logic that would mean we can't include ssh, openssl, pgp,
and even https support in any browser.
Does that seems reasonable to you?

You need to face it, it would be impossible to make a distro that is legal
in every country of the world and at the same time is of any use to the
users.
Therefore I don't see the need why we should comply with US patent laws
when we don't comply with for example Chinese encryption laws.



All of your points are exactly what I am trying to point out and even
reinforce my concerns. These are all true. This is why, in my opinion,
the Mageia distro should not be installing all of these controversial
software packages by default.


Are you seriously suggesting Mageia should produce a distro without ssh,
openssl and even with all browsers stripped of https support?

I can imagine how popular that would be with the majority of users...


This would then remove that layer of liability from the Mageia
project group. In my opinion, Mageia should be wary in wanting to
install a fully functioning distro if this means using software packages
that may get it into trouble (Mageia itself).


But here lies the mistake in your reasoning. Mageia doesn't have to
exclude all those packages, since the only liability Mageia has, is
towards the French laws.

So the sensible choice is to base the choice of packages to include on
French law. It is up to the user to make sure he/she only installs and
uses packages that are legal in his/her country.




Obviously running in circles here, I guess we both have our opinions and 
we let it rest at that.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, [UTF-8] Marc ParÃ© wrote:

> Le 2010-10-12 22:04, Tux99 a Ã©crit :
> >
> > According to your logic that would mean we can't include ssh, openssl, pgp,
> > and even https support in any browser.
> > Does that seems reasonable to you?
> >
> > You need to face it, it would be impossible to make a distro that is legal
> > in every country of the world and at the same time is of any use to the
> > users.
> > Therefore I don't see the need why we should comply with US patent laws
> > when we don't comply with for example Chinese encryption laws.
> >
> 
> All of your points are exactly what I am trying to point out and even 
> reinforce my concerns. These are all true. This is why, in my opinion, 
> the Mageia distro should not be installing all of these controversial 
> software packages by default.

Are you seriously suggesting Mageia should produce a distro without ssh, 
openssl and even with all browsers stripped of https support?

I can imagine how popular that would be with the majority of users...

> This would then remove that layer of liability from the Mageia 
> project group. In my opinion, Mageia should be wary in wanting to 
> install a fully functioning distro if this means using software packages 
> that may get it into trouble (Mageia itself).

But here lies the mistake in your reasoning. Mageia doesn't have to 
exclude all those packages, since the only liability Mageia has, is 
towards the French laws.

So the sensible choice is to base the choice of packages to include on 
French law. It is up to the user to make sure he/she only installs and 
uses packages that are legal in his/her country.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-12 22:04, Tux99 a écrit :



Marc, just as a further point to reflect on:
there are countries in the world were encryption is illegal or severely
restricted.

According to your logic that would mean we can't include ssh, openssl, pgp,
and even https support in any browser.
Does that seems reasonable to you?

You need to face it, it would be impossible to make a distro that is legal
in every country of the world and at the same time is of any use to the
users.
Therefore I don't see the need why we should comply with US patent laws
when we don't comply with for example Chinese encryption laws.

The only reasonable choice is do what every other distro does:
comply with the laws of the country where the distro is legally based in,
in this case France.

Regardless of all that, it is ALWAYS the user's (not the distro makers)
responsibility to comply with local laws of where the distro is being
installed/used.



All of your points are exactly what I am trying to point out and even 
reinforce my concerns. These are all true. This is why, in my opinion, 
the Mageia distro should not be installing all of these controversial 
software packages by default. These should be added on after the Mageia 
official distro and the user would thereafter install further software 
packages that he/she wished to have to make the distro work as he/she 
wished. This would then remove that layer of liability from the Mageia 
project group. In my opinion, Mageia should be wary in wanting to 
install a fully functioning distro if this means using software packages 
that may get it into trouble (Mageia itself). Let the user then assume 
that responsibility/liability. This is where, I consider the "easy 
urpmi" served its purpose well. It installed repos where the available 
software that most users would need was made available, but this again 
was by user choice.


Cheers

Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc



Marc, just as a further point to reflect on:
there are countries in the world were encryption is illegal or severely
restricted.

According to your logic that would mean we can't include ssh, openssl, pgp,
and even https support in any browser.
Does that seems reasonable to you?

You need to face it, it would be impossible to make a distro that is legal
in every country of the world and at the same time is of any use to the
users.
Therefore I don't see the need why we should comply with US patent laws
when we don't comply with for example Chinese encryption laws.

The only reasonable choice is do what every other distro does:
comply with the laws of the country where the distro is legally based in,
in this case France.

Regardless of all that, it is ALWAYS the user's (not the distro makers)
responsibility to comply with local laws of where the distro is being
installed/used.

-- 
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, [UTF-8] Marc ParÃ© wrote:

> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
> http://newteevee.com/2010/05/21/mpeg-la-threatens-googles-vp8-with-patent-pool-license/
> http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/03/new-litigation-campaign-targets-tens-of-thousands-of-bittorrent-users.html
> http://www.sevensidedcube.net/biggest-movie-law-suite-ever-hurt-locker/

Marc, by looking at the links you posted I see that you indeed don't 
understand the issue and are confusing copyright with patents.

The only patent related issue you posted a link for, is the google vp8 
one (which I'm well aware of) and if anything that confirms that even so 
called 'safe' codecs like Theora aren't safe at all in the US.

There is no way any Linux distro (or indeed any software company) can 
make sure it complies with US patents, since the US patent situation is 
a complete mess, as I mentioned earlier even Microsoft has been 
successfully sued for unintentionally using unlicensed patent 
technology.
So just leaving out the bits that are currently in plf doesn't guarantee 
at all that Mageia is compliant with patent laws in the US.

> If you and others are willing to indemnify Mageia users and installers 
> against any lawsuits due to packaging unlicensed software/codecs/etc , 
> this would go a long way to giving people like myself piece of mind.

Mageia cannot be sued based on US patent laws since Mageia is a French 
association with no legal ties to the US.
The packagers themselves are even less exposed since they don't publish 
or distribute anything, Mageia does that.

> If RedHat is able to maintain corporate headquarters in the US, then I 
> would suggest we examine closely their packaging repos.

In fact since Redhat targets servers they avoid most of the issue 
as they don't need multimedia codecs, but nonetheless Redhat is very 
exposed to patent lawsuits, just like any other US based software 
company.

> You cannot claim international status 
> if you package a distro that is legal in one country and then illegal in 
> another.

If you ONLY want to include packages that are safe in EVERY country of 
the world then you need to spend huge amounts of money on layers that 
know patent laws for every country in the world and the distro will have 
very few 'safe' packages left in the end.

> This is why, in my opinion, Mageia should try to steer itself away, as 
> much as possible, from grey and illegal areas and leave it to the end 
> user's choice whether or not to install these packages.

Exactly, that's why I suggested an install-time option for the user.

> We are trying to build a great package. Why would the Mageia team put 
> in peril its existence and the people's income 
> (through potential expensive lawsuits)?

We won't have a great package if we exclude everything that is 
potentially a legal issue in some country of the world, in fact very 
little usability will be left in the distro (look at plain 
out-of-the-box fedora, which tries to comply to US laws).

No distro out there is trying to comply to the laws of every country in 
the world, most distros just try to comply to the laws of the country 
they are legally based in, why should Mageia be any different?

Again, as long Mageia complies with French law there is no risk of 
serious lawsuits (there is no way to protect against frivolous 
lawsuits), please don't spread FUD about putting it's existence in 
peril, that doesn't help your argument at all.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

Le 2010-10-12 17:45, Tux99 a écrit :

Quote: marc wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 19:31

The safest route is to offer FOSS software (they are well known and
many
have had their code audited) and leave the "fringe" softs on a repo
that
is left to the users' choice as install.

Marc, FOSS has nothing to do with whether a particular software infringes
on patents in some countries or not, don't confuse the COPYRIGHT license
with patents issues.

There is plenty of pure FOSS software that is infringing on some patents
(primarily in the US with their free-for-all software patent policy), in
fact given the amount of software patents granted in the US I wouldn't be
surprised if most FOSS software (actually most software, not just FOSS)
infringes some patent in the US (heck, even MS Office just got caught
infringing on some patent held by some patent-troll).

This starts from the Linux kernel all the way to apps like OOo, there is
simply no way to make a distro that is patent-safe according to US laws.

Why do you think Canonical is incorporated in the UK and not in the US?

Why do you think Novell made the patent-protection agreement with
Microsoft?

The only major commercial Linux distro that is based in US is Redhat and
that's probably only because at the time they were founded the patents
issue in the US didn't exist yet (at least not like these days).

We cannot base our distro on the ridiculous patents laws of the US, first
of all there is no legal reason to do so, and second why should users all
around the world suffer US patent laws despite they don't apply to them?

Having separate plf repos IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE for new users (and for
packagers probably too), first of all because most have no idea that these
exist and then even if they find out you need to consider all those users
on dialup for whom downloading many megabytes of replacement plf packages
is a major problem.

So again, I suggest we include all the important codecs and
drivers/firmware that help the user to have a great out-of-the-box
experience with Mageia, but we add a question during installation so the
user can decide if he wants to install them or not.

This should keep everybody happy, I don't see why this couldn't be
agreeable for you.

Hi Tux99:

http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
http://newteevee.com/2010/05/21/mpeg-la-threatens-googles-vp8-with-patent-pool-license/
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/03/new-litigation-campaign-targets-tens-of-thousands-of-bittorrent-users.html
http://www.sevensidedcube.net/biggest-movie-law-suite-ever-hurt-locker/

Hmmm ... let's see now, I started collecting this list at 20.11h and it
is now 20:13 and all I did was Google "2010 movie lawsuit"; 2010 codec
lawsuit"; "2010 mp3 lawsuit" and the list is realistically longer.

If you and others are willing to indemnify Mageia users and installers
against any lawsuits due to packaging unlicensed software/codecs/etc ,
this would go a long way to giving people like myself piece of mind.

When packaging an OS distro, we (as a community) should assume that the
product that our community devs and distro planners will not in the end
be cause of concern.

If RedHat is able to maintain corporate headquarters in the US, then I
would suggest we examine closely their packaging repos. Mageia touts
itself as an international distro. You cannot claim international status
if you package a distro that is legal in one country and then illegal in
another. Some of the software packages have been reverse engineered to
circumvent patent laws while others are still in the grey zone and
others are not supposed to be installed due to their legal status.

This is why, in my opinion, Mageia should try to steer itself away, as
much as possible, from grey and illegal areas and leave it to the end
user's choice whether or not to install these packages. There is nothing
wrong in also adding the Codeina/Fluendo option for those who would
rather use this service. We are trying to build a great package. Why
would the Mageia team put in peril its existence and the people's income
(through potential expensive lawsuits)? If users decide to use this
technology then they put themselves in this position and not the distro.

We can let users know of the existence of these "questionable" pieces of
software, there is nothing wrong with this, especially when we offer
users a perfectly legal way of gaining use of codecs, libs etc. Whether
the users decide to use the "legitimate way" or the "other" way is
completely up to them and not Mageia's responsibility.

Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc



Quote: marc wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 19:31

> The safest route is to offer FOSS software (they are well known and
> many 
> have had their code audited) and leave the "fringe" softs on a repo
> that 
> is left to the users' choice as install.

Marc, FOSS has nothing to do with whether a particular software infringes
on patents in some countries or not, don't confuse the COPYRIGHT license
with patents issues.

There is plenty of pure FOSS software that is infringing on some patents
(primarily in the US with their free-for-all software patent policy), in
fact given the amount of software patents granted in the US I wouldn't be
surprised if most FOSS software (actually most software, not just FOSS)
infringes some patent in the US (heck, even MS Office just got caught
infringing on some patent held by some patent-troll).

This starts from the Linux kernel all the way to apps like OOo, there is
simply no way to make a distro that is patent-safe according to US laws.

Why do you think Canonical is incorporated in the UK and not in the US?

Why do you think Novell made the patent-protection agreement with
Microsoft?

The only major commercial Linux distro that is based in US is Redhat and
that's probably only because at the time they were founded the patents
issue in the US didn't exist yet (at least not like these days).

We cannot base our distro on the ridiculous patents laws of the US, first
of all there is no legal reason to do so, and second why should users all
around the world suffer US patent laws despite they don't apply to them?

Having separate plf repos IS A MAJOR OBSTACLE for new users (and for
packagers probably too), first of all because most have no idea that these
exist and then even if they find out you need to consider all those users
on dialup for whom downloading many megabytes of replacement plf packages
is a major problem.

So again, I suggest we include all the important codecs and
drivers/firmware that help the user to have a great out-of-the-box
experience with Mageia, but we add a question during installation so the
user can decide if he wants to install them or not.

This should keep everybody happy, I don't see why this couldn't be
agreeable for you.

-- 
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 12:42:55 Marc Paré wrote:
> Le 2010-10-12 12:21, Lucien-Henry Horvath a écrit :
> > Le 12/10/2010 18:19, Tux99 a écrit :
> >> I think Mageia should include as much multimedia codecs as possible,
> >> it the
> >> user's responsibility to know the laws of his/her country and if
> >> necessary
> >> uninstall anything unlicensed/illegal in his/her country.
> > 
> > Not only multimedia but drivers too ... in my humble personal opinion /
> > wishes.
> 
> Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install
> legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are not
> installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.
> 
> When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where the
> PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.
> 
> If Mageia packages include unlicensed software and codecs, the Mageia
> brand may be held legally responsible for marketing software in
> countries where the laws do not permit this. I don't really think would
> be a wise decision.

Like Ubuntu has been? :)

I do see your point, though.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 17:53:54 Olivier Méjean wrote:
> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 17:02:38, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> > Hi all!
> > 
> > == What about patents?
> 
> Software Patents are allowed or not according to the country. Here in
> France, where Mageia.org, the association is based, the rule is softwares
> are not eligible to patent so i would say that there is no need to apply
> restriction
> 
> > == And DVDCSS, etc?
> 
> What's in etc ?

libaacs for example, for AACS in Bluray.

> However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
> Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that the
> law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception of
> circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words the
> use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
> interoperability
> 
> About codec, you may know that VLC is based in France and hosts some
> projects useful for interoperability. Since the start of the project in
> 1996, i don't remember VLC being sued for such projects. So let's provide
> codec by default with Mageia for a better "user experience" :)
> 
> These are my first comments
> 
> Olivier
-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 13:31:21 Marc Paré wrote:
> There was actually nothing wrong with the Mandriva treatment of repos.
> It clearly satisfied everyone's expectation of their installation. It
> became a matter of user choice. By installing, by default, non-licensed
> software you are not giving the user the choice. You are then targeting
> a group of users who can install without legal consequence.

Didn't you read the first post? :)
Mandriva in fact includes lots of codec packages covered by patents.

The point is that we need to decide what kind of packages do we want. Should 
we drop practically all codecs (like Fedora), or have them all in the 
repository (like Ubuntu)?

> I thought that PLF were on board with the Mageia project. Does anyone know?

They are.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 18:18:41 Jerome Quelin wrote:
> On 10/10/12 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning
> > we should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> > 
> > == Do we want a separated core repository?
> > 
> > No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
> > Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)
> 
> i'd rather have no separated core repository. it's really not funny to
> fail some builds in core because of deps in contrib: understanding why
> the build fails, requesting the move to main, waiting for someone with
> move powers to act, waiting for hdlist to be rebuilt and finally,
> finally resubmit the job... -ENOFUN!
> 
> now, i guess this will also depend of the support policy we decide for
> mageia. but i'd really, really like *not* to split main & contrib (or
> whatever their names are).

I'd have to agree.

However, if we'll only support a subset of the packages, it needs to be very 
clear for everyone what packages are supported and whatnot (meaning notable 
notifications in rpmdrake, etc).

.. though AFAICS Mandriva didn't make this clear at all either, unless users 
went to the wiki page to read the media descriptions. We should do better.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 17:34:34 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> On 12 October 2010 17:02, Anssi Hannula  wrote:
> > Restrictions:
> >  - packages can only depend or builddepend on packages in main itself
> >  - packages need to have an open source license
> >   o unwritten exception: various non-free but distributable firmware
> > (see
> > kernel-firmware), for example radeon firmware and TG3 ethernet
> > firmware are included despite their license; the selection is arbitrary
> 
> It's not an exception. Those that as a reasonable licence go in
> main/release/kernel-firmware
> Those w/o a license go into non-free/release/kernel-firmware-extra

It would seem like that, but if you take a look in the included firmware files 
you'll see that is not true (I also raised this on cooker@ once: "[RFC] Non-
free firmware: main or non-free, or?").

Some randomexamples:
kernel-firmware:
 - TG3 firmware: redistribution allowed, no modifications
 - Sun Cassini: Unknown
 - ti_usb_3410_5052: redistributable, no modifications.

kernel-firmware-extra:
 - agere firmware: redistributable, modifications allowed
 - Atheros firmware: same
 - usbdux: GPL with source code


Basically 'kernel-firmware' contains all firmware that has at some point been 
in the main kernel itself, while 'kernel-firmware-extra' contains all new 
firmware.

License does not factor in here.

-- 
Anssi Hannula

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Luca Berra


On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 06:02:38PM +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:

== Do we want a separated core repository?

No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)


i think so, main+contrib is about 20G and some stuff is not really
maintained.


== What will be officially supported?

- And what does that mean?

being a non profit, everything that shall be officially supported must
have a sponsor. orphans are not supportable.


== How are the sections named? :)

I think I'm in favor of renaming 'contrib' to 'extra'.

sounds nice to me



== Where do redistributable firmware go (Radeon graphics, Intel WLAN, TG3 
ethernet, etc)?


To main repository: Arch, Fedora, Opensuse, Ubuntu
To the non-free repository: Debian
Case-by-case arbitrary decision: Mandriva

If we want to separate non-free firmware à la Debian, I guess one option would 
be a separate firmware repository... or we could make free-only installation 
an expert option. Certainly we want tg3 ethernet and radeon to work on a 
standard installation, and for this we really need the firmware.


I'd probably prefer to put them in main (as all non-Debian ones) but do some 
metapackage magic (or similar) to allow blacklisting them easily for those who 
want to.

I'm in favor of some kind of separation, if it is by creating a firmware
repo or some packaging magik it is merely a technical question.



== Where do firmware without license go (DVB, V4L, etc)?

To unsupported non-free repository: Ubuntu (multiverse) [1],
To unsupported repository without binary packages: Arch (AUR)
Nowhere: Debian, Fedora, Opensuse, Mandriva

I guess for this one I'd prefer a helper draktool to handle/download these 
instead of shipping them ourselves.

this sounds a nice idea, or do something like the plf flash-player
package



== What about patents?


I agree with Olivier on this, mageia as an association should protect
itself from being sued in France, apart from that we should be actively
fighting patents ;)


== If we choose a separate core repository, should we do something regarding
  OOo and java?
(there are a million java packages with tight interdependencies, and due to 
OOo requiring some of those, we need to ship the whole web in main)



== Do we allow P2P file transfer software?

Yes: Arch, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu
No, except torrents: Mandriva
Unknown, at least torrents allowed: Opensuse

if the software is free, yes
Ptp is not illegal anywere, transferring copyrighted materal without
authorization usually is.


== And gaming emulators?


again, if the software is free, yes


== And DVDCSS, etc?
Allowed: Arch
Not allowed: Debian, Fedora, Mandriva, Opensuse, Ubuntu

This should probably be 'no'.

I'd say yes, in europe it should fall under the interoperability case.


--
Luca Berra -- bl...@vodka.it

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Wolfgang Bornath

2010/10/12 Olivier Méjean :
>
> Maybe a workaround would be to use timezone to determine the country and for
> some country disable the installation of codec and other nice things.

Ah, Olivier, grab that ball with all those colors and a light bulb
inside (aka Globe) and just see which countries are in the same TZ as
France or Germany. :)

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Wolfgang Bornath

2010/10/12 Olivier Méjean :
>
> Free and non-free is pretty simple, once we have agreed on what's free and
> what's not !
>
> For example, Lame is a free software (GPL) but i may not be free according to
> patents if software patents are legal and it depends on the country.

Yes, but there is a third group: software which may be illegal to be
used in certain countries. This has nothing to do with free or
non-free. For example, friends of the movie industry claim that
libdvdcss is illegal in Germany, other legal experts claim just the
opposite. This issue never went to court because IMO the movie
industry does not want to risk a court decision against them (like in
France). So they keep publishing FUD about this and it's up to the
user to decide which side he thinks is right - not a good idea in a
legal issue.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc





And why don't we affect specific packages to the country exactly like
the localization is affected ? In France too the default install is
certainly the choice of the educational establishments ... but in french
FR_FR, not in EN_US.
So, why not a pre-selection of certain kind of packages in the same time
of selection of the country in the install menu ?

Suggestion : (don't beat me please) :

Actually, we have team for translating the texts ... why not somes teams
for choose between "free or not free" packages in localized variation of
Mageia.
I know PLF (without that, no Mandriva on my PC), but I think that
waiting the PLF adaptation, or have garbage free packages after PLF
installation is not optimal.



Own remark : (No, no, don't beat ...)

Mageia is new, young, dynamical ... I suggest to use this situation for
don't go in the same ways than the others ... With "free + PLF", we
don't inovate in regard of the existing Mandriva / OpenSuse / Ubuntu /
Slac/ etc ... etc ... we only repeat the old schema. Why do a new distro
also ?





I think pre-selected Country installs would just be too hard to 
coordinate, laws change. Free and non-free is pretty simple.


Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


 Le 12/10/2010 19:31, Marc Paré a écrit :
Hi Lucien, this is not directed to you but to the discussion on this 
thread:

No problem for me ;-)
There was actually nothing wrong with the Mandriva treatment of repos. 
It clearly satisfied everyone's expectation of their installation. It 
became a matter of user choice. By installing, by default, 
non-licensed software you are not giving the user the choice. You are 
then targeting a group of users who can install without legal 
consequence. If Mageia.ca or Mageia.us etc. decided to organize, then 
as entities, they would then become liable for the publication of 
illegal software. In Canada, they are a little more lenient than in 
the US. I cannot imagine anyone organising such a group in the US 
where they would accept liability for this.


If there is a choice of installing non-licensed software, then it 
should be done at the user level and not at the Mageia level. 
Non-licensed software will not be accepted by any educational 
establishments, business, government, associations ...


The safest route is to offer FOSS software (they are well known and 
many have had their code audited) and leave the "fringe" softs on a 
repo that is left to the users' choice as install.


I thought that PLF were on board with the Mageia project. Does anyone 
know?


Marc


And why don't we affect specific packages to the country exactly like 
the localization is affected ? In France too the default install is 
certainly the choice of the educational establishments ... but in french 
FR_FR, not in EN_US.
So, why not a pre-selection of certain kind of packages in the same time 
of selection of the country in the install menu ?


Suggestion : (don't beat me please) :

Actually, we have team for translating the texts ... why not somes teams 
for choose between "free or not free" packages in localized variation of 
Mageia.
I know PLF (without that, no Mandriva on my PC), but I think that 
waiting the PLF adaptation, or have garbage free packages after PLF 
installation is not optimal.




Own remark : (No, no, don't beat ...)

Mageia is new, young, dynamical ... I suggest to use this situation for 
don't go in the same ways than the others ... With "free + PLF", we 
don't inovate in regard of the existing Mandriva / OpenSuse / Ubuntu / 
Slac/ etc ... etc ... we only repeat the old schema. Why do a new distro 
also ?

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Maarten Vanraes

Op dinsdag 12 oktober 2010 18:07:08 schreef Ahmad Samir:
> On 12 October 2010 17:53, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
> > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 17:02:38, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
> >> Hi all!
> >> 
> >> == What about patents?
> > 
> > Software Patents are allowed or not according to the country. Here in
> > France, where Mageia.org, the association is based, the rule is
> > softwares are not eligible to patent so i would say that there is no
> > need to apply restriction
> > 
> >> == And DVDCSS, etc?
> > 
> > What's in etc ?
> > However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
> > Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that
> > the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception
> > of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words
> > the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> > So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
> > interoperability
> > 
> > About codec, you may know that VLC is based in France and hosts some
> > projects useful for interoperability. Since the start of the project in
> > 1996, i don't remember VLC being sued for such projects. So let's
> > provide codec by default with Mageia for a better "user experience" :)
> > 
> > These are my first comments
> > 
> > Olivier
> 
> Mageia won't be installed only in France; those patents still apply in
> other countries so not all patent restrictions can be dropped.


imo, they could be dropped, it's just simply the user who will have to watch 
out which he will use and which he won't

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-12 12:54, Lucien-Henry Horvath a écrit :

Le 12/10/2010 18:42, Marc Paré a écrit :


Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install
legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are
not installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.

When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where
the PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.

If Mageia packages include unlicensed software and codecs, the Mageia
brand may be held legally responsible for marketing software in
countries where the laws do not permit this. I don't really think
would be a wise decision.

Marc
Canada


The problem with a modification of packages with PLF post an initial
install is that we are not absolutely sure to clean/drop/definitively
destroy the "patent compliant packages" ... the dependencies between rpm
are in cause.

I have not done the count, but often it is not possible for me to
uninstall certain packages because after installation they come in the
dependencies of others. But the unique reason of presence is not because
they are usefull, but only this binding dependencies.


I think now to a sort of option to choice just at the beginning of first
install. A question like : "Do you need patent free packages or want you
cool packages" ?
- If response 1 : Mageia install only the legal compliances packages,
- if 2 ... the legal packages are not installed and we have the easy to
use package for easy to use OS (VLC with DVD for example, nvidia drivers).
With that, all the world is satisfied ;-)

Is it possible ?



Hi Lucien, this is not directed to you but to the discussion on this thread:

There was actually nothing wrong with the Mandriva treatment of repos. 
It clearly satisfied everyone's expectation of their installation. It 
became a matter of user choice. By installing, by default, non-licensed 
software you are not giving the user the choice. You are then targeting 
a group of users who can install without legal consequence. If Mageia.ca 
or Mageia.us etc. decided to organize, then as entities, they would then 
become liable for the publication of illegal software. In Canada, they 
are a little more lenient than in the US. I cannot imagine anyone 
organising such a group in the US where they would accept liability for 
this.


If there is a choice of installing non-licensed software, then it should 
be done at the user level and not at the Mageia level. Non-licensed 
software will not be accepted by any educational establishments, 
business, government, associations ...


The safest route is to offer FOSS software (they are well known and many 
have had their code audited) and leave the "fringe" softs on a repo that 
is left to the users' choice as install.


I thought that PLF were on board with the Mageia project. Does anyone know?

Marc

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Maarten Vanraes

Op dinsdag 12 oktober 2010 17:02:38 schreef Anssi Hannula:
> Hi all!
> 
> Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning we
> should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> 
> Note that I won't talk about backports / private repositories in this post,
> only about the basic sectioning and packages in those.
> 
> Some points to consider (I've written my opinion in ones where I have one):

imo; non_free should be separated from free (to allow easy Free releases)

extra could contain the (un/poorly) maintained packages (or extra could be 
gone).

for efficiency reasons, maybe having main+contrib in one repos; could be slow

we could separate some noarch content packages in another repos (which will 
never be arched)

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc



Quote: Ahmad Samir wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 19:08
> 
> How do you think packages were done in Mandriva (and other distros)
> all those years?

Mandriva was a commercial company with ambitions to sell it's products
commercial all over the world, that's a completely different situation to
Mageia.

> Sure, Mageia won't be held responsible, only the users deploying it in
> other countries where those laws apply. You also have to bear in mind
> school/university labs, companies.. etc.

Like I suggested earlier, during install there can be an option to
include/exclude well known problematic packages.

And yes, end users will ALWAYS be responsible for what they install/use,
regardless what Mageia includes in the default install, Mageia (or anyone
else) cannot take that responsibility away from the user.
Besides that I have never heard of a private person being sued for using
unlicensed  patented codecs, not even in the US and most US Linux users
install them anyway from plf (or similar repos of other distros).

Regardless of that no company/school/university will just do a default
install (regardless if we include plf packages), they will always have to
do their own custom selection based on their on internal regulations
anyway (in addition to local laws).

-- 
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc



Quote: Lucien-Henry Horvath wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 19:00
>
> Don't panic ... if our french government continue in the sens of
> DADVSI, 
> HADOPI, and LOPSI law ... our futur is to build any linux distribution
> 
> without possibility to install anything (no video player, no tools for
> 
> download, no tools for learn working about network like netsaint etc
> ...).
> 
>   Poor dear freedom  :(

If that happens then the owners/maintainers of zarb.org/plf will be in
trouble, too.

Also if it ever gets that bad, then the association could in future be
moved to a country with less restrictive laws, it doesn't have to be in
the same country as the founders.

All big corporations do that (move their HQ to the country with the best
laws/taxes) so why not a FOSS association?

-- 
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Ahmad Samir

On 12 October 2010 18:52, Tux99  wrote:
>
>
> Quote: marc wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 18:42
>> Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install
>> legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are not
>>
>> installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.
>
> How do you expect Mageia to verify each single package to make sure it
> complies with the laws in ALL countries of the world?
> Mageia should make sure that the packages comply with French law, but
> that's it.
>

How do you think packages were done in Mandriva (and other distros)
all those years?

> You can still install Mageia and then remove the packages that are
> problematic in your country, I very much doubt your laws are that
> draconian that you can't even do that.
> Mageia could include an option during install to exclude the well-known
> problematic packages from installation to make this easier for people that
> live in countries with restrictive laws.
>
>> When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where the
>>
>> PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.
>
> This is a major hassle for new/inexperienced users and IMHO should be
> avoided.
>
>> If Mageia packages include unlicensed software and codecs, the Mageia
>> brand may be held legally responsible for marketing software in
>> countries where the laws do not permit this.
>
> This is nonsense, Mageia can only be held responsible in France based on
> French law (as long as Mageia isn't planning subsidiaries in outher
> countries, which IMHO is unlikely and completely unnecessary for a
> non-profit association).
>

Sure, Mageia won't be held responsible, only the users deploying it in
other countries where those laws apply. You also have to bear in mind
school/university labs, companies.. etc.

-- 
Ahmad Samir

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


 Le 12/10/2010 18:52, Tux99 a écrit :

This is nonsense, Mageia can only be held responsible in France based on
French law (as long as Mageia isn't planning subsidiaries in outher
countries, which IMHO is unlikely and completely unnecessary for a
non-profit association).
Don't panic ... if our french government continue in the sens of DADVSI, 
HADOPI, and LOPSI law ... our futur is to build any linux distribution 
without possibility to install anything (no video player, no tools for 
download, no tools for learn working about network like netsaint etc ...).


 Poor dear freedom  :-(

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


 Le 12/10/2010 18:42, Marc Paré a écrit :


Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install 
legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are 
not installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.


When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where 
the PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.


If Mageia packages include unlicensed software and codecs, the Mageia 
brand may be held legally responsible for marketing software in 
countries where the laws do not permit this. I don't really think 
would be a wise decision.


Marc
Canada

The problem with a modification of packages with PLF post an initial 
install is that we are not absolutely sure to clean/drop/definitively 
destroy the "patent compliant packages" ... the dependencies between rpm 
are in cause.


I have not done the count, but often it is not possible for me to 
uninstall certain packages because after installation they come in the 
dependencies of others. But the unique reason of presence is not because 
they are usefull, but only this binding dependencies.



I think now to a sort of option to choice just at the beginning of first 
install. A question like : "Do you need patent free packages or want you 
cool packages" ?

- If response 1 : Mageia install only the legal compliances packages,
- if 2 ... the legal packages are not installed and we have the easy to 
use package for easy to use OS (VLC with DVD for example, nvidia drivers).

With that, all the world is satisfied ;-)

Is it possible ?

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc



Quote: marc wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 18:42
> Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install 
> legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are not
> 
> installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.

How do you expect Mageia to verify each single package to make sure it
complies with the laws in ALL countries of the world?
Mageia should make sure that the packages comply with French law, but
that's it.

You can still install Mageia and then remove the packages that are
problematic in your country, I very much doubt your laws are that
draconian that you can't even do that.
Mageia could include an option during install to exclude the well-known
problematic packages from installation to make this easier for people that
live in countries with restrictive laws.

> When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where the
> 
> PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.

This is a major hassle for new/inexperienced users and IMHO should be
avoided.

> If Mageia packages include unlicensed software and codecs, the Mageia 
> brand may be held legally responsible for marketing software in 
> countries where the laws do not permit this.

This is nonsense, Mageia can only be held responsible in France based on
French law (as long as Mageia isn't planning subsidiaries in outher
countries, which IMHO is unlikely and completely unnecessary for a
non-profit association).

-- 
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


Le 2010-10-12 12:21, Lucien-Henry Horvath a écrit :

Le 12/10/2010 18:19, Tux99 a écrit :


I think Mageia should include as much multimedia codecs as possible,
it the
user's responsibility to know the laws of his/her country and if
necessary
uninstall anything unlicensed/illegal in his/her country.


Not only multimedia but drivers too ... in my humble personal opinion /
wishes.



Unfortunately, if this is done, I will no longer be able to install 
legally any Mageia due to our laws. I think it is best if these are not 
installed but let users know where to get them, mostly through PLF.


When I install Mandriva Free for people, I will let them know where the 
PLF repos are and the files needed and they install these themselves.


If Mageia packages include unlicensed software and codecs, the Mageia 
brand may be held legally responsible for marketing software in 
countries where the laws do not permit this. I don't really think would 
be a wise decision.


Marc
Canada

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


 Le 12/10/2010 18:19, Tux99 a écrit :


I think Mageia should include as much multimedia codecs as possible, it the
user's responsibility to know the laws of his/her country and if necessary
uninstall anything unlicensed/illegal in his/her country.

Not only multimedia but drivers too ... in my humble personal opinion / 
wishes.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc


 Le 12/10/2010 18:11, Olivier Méjean a écrit :



Mageia won't be installed only in France; those patents still apply in
other countries so not all patent restrictions can be dropped.

And going that way you will have to drop each software that will break a law
in a country ...

Olivier

Hi,
+1
When I install a linux distro (Ubuntu - OpenSuse - Mandriva), my first 
reflex is to install all the "non-free" packages because I can not use 
the full functionnality of my PC (watching protected DVD, proprietary 
drivers like nvidia / ati / wireless ... etc. ...)


Is it possible to build a Mageia distro with all necessary package for 
easy use without all this patents problem and specifically for each 
country some specials web pages ?
In these web pages : the list of non-free packages to replace by free 
packages ...

(for example).

Patent restrictions are completely against ease of use and enjoying user 
experience.

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc



Quote: Ahmad Samir wrote on Tue, 12 October 2010 18:07
>
> Mageia won't be installed only in France; those patents still apply in
> other countries so not all patent restrictions can be dropped.

Nobody know the laws of every country in the world.

Just because some software might be covered by patents in a FEW countries,
you want to make users in the rest of the world suffer the inconvenience
of not having proper multimedia support out of the box?

I think Mageia should include as much multimedia codecs as possible, it the
user's responsibility to know the laws of his/her country and if necessary
uninstall anything unlicensed/illegal in his/her country.

-- 
Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Jerome Quelin

On 10/10/12 18:02 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Do people have any thoughts on what kind of repository/media sectioning we 
> should use on Mageia, and what should those sections contain?
> 
> == Do we want a separated core repository?
> 
> No separated core: Fedora, Debian, Opensuse
> Separated core: Mandriva (main), Ubuntu (main), Arch (Core)

i'd rather have no separated core repository. it's really not funny to
fail some builds in core because of deps in contrib: understanding why
the build fails, requesting the move to main, waiting for someone with
move powers to act, waiting for hdlist to be rebuilt and finally,
finally resubmit the job... -ENOFUN!

now, i guess this will also depend of the support policy we decide for
mageia. but i'd really, really like *not* to split main & contrib (or
whatever their names are).

jérôme 
-- 
jque...@gmail.com

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Ahmad Samir

On 12 October 2010 18:11, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 18:07:08, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
>> On 12 October 2010 17:53, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
>> > Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 17:02:38, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
>> >> Hi all!
>> >>
>> >> == What about patents?
>> >
>> > Software Patents are allowed or not according to the country. Here in
>> > France, where Mageia.org, the association is based, the rule is
>> > softwares are not eligible to patent so i would say that there is no
>> > need to apply restriction
>> >
>> >> == And DVDCSS, etc?
>> >
>> > What's in etc ?
>> > However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
>> > Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that
>> > the law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception
>> > of circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words
>> > the use of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
>> > So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for
>> > interoperability
>> >
>> > About codec, you may know that VLC is based in France and hosts some
>> > projects useful for interoperability. Since the start of the project in
>> > 1996, i don't remember VLC being sued for such projects. So let's
>> > provide codec by default with Mageia for a better "user experience" :)
>> >
>> > These are my first comments
>> >
>> > Olivier
>>
>> Mageia won't be installed only in France; those patents still apply in
>> other countries so not all patent restrictions can be dropped.
>
> And going that way you will have to drop each software that will break a law
> in a country ...
>
> Olivier
>

I said "not all patent restrictions can be dropped"; it's not a
lift-all-restrictions-and-hope-it-works-out sort of deal here :)

Not all patents are enforceable in a court of law, however some of them are.

-- 
Ahmad Samir

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Ahmad Samir

On 12 October 2010 17:53, Olivier Méjean  wrote:
> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 17:02:38, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
>> Hi all!
>>
>> == What about patents?
>
> Software Patents are allowed or not according to the country. Here in France,
> where Mageia.org, the association is based, the rule is softwares are not
> eligible to patent so i would say that there is no need to apply restriction
>
>>
>> == And DVDCSS, etc?
>
> What's in etc ?
> However, here in France we have a law "Dadvsi" on which the Conseil
> Constitutionnel (something like American Suprem Court) has statuted that the
> law could not prevent exception of decompilation and the exception of
> circumvention of DRM if this is for interoperability. In other words the use
> of libdvdcss is allowed for interoperability.
> So for me, Mageia can come with libdvdcss and other tools for interoperability
>
> About codec, you may know that VLC is based in France and hosts some projects
> useful for interoperability. Since the start of the project in 1996, i don't
> remember VLC being sued for such projects. So let's provide codec by default
> with Mageia for a better "user experience" :)
>
> These are my first comments
>
> Olivier
>


Mageia won't be installed only in France; those patents still apply in
other countries so not all patent restrictions can be dropped.

-- 
Ahmad Samir

Re: [Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc

2010-10-12 Thread Thierry Vignaud

On 12 October 2010 17:02, Anssi Hannula  wrote:
> Restrictions:
>  - packages can only depend or builddepend on packages in main itself
>  - packages need to have an open source license
>   o unwritten exception: various non-free but distributable firmware (see
>     kernel-firmware), for example radeon firmware and TG3 ethernet firmware
>     are included despite their license; the selection is arbitrary

It's not an exception. Those that as a reasonable licence go in
main/release/kernel-firmware
Those w/o a license go into non-free/release/kernel-firmware-extra

[Mageia-dev] Mageia repository sections, licenses, restrictions, firmware etc