On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 8 December 2010 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
2010/12/8 Ahmad Samir :
For Fedora, being the most legally-challenged distro around, they
don't include any patented software in their official repos at all,
not even mp3 playback is possible in a defaul
Maurice Batey schrieb am 2010-12-08
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> > You are talking about the commercial package. We are talking
> > about the "normal" distribution.
> Fair enough! And I hope Mageia will not mandate BitTorrent...
As told several times before, Bi
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> You are talking about the commercial package. We are talking about the
> "normal" distribution.
Fair enough! And I hope Mageia will not mandate BitTorrent...
--
/\/\aurice
2010/12/8 herman :
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:28 -0700, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>> So, we either abandon the mirrorlist approach
>> or we have 2 mirrorlists (one with and one without tainted software)
>> and let the user decide which one he sets up on his system.
> +1 for two mirror lists.
> This i
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:28 -0700, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> So, we either abandon the mirrorlist approach
> or we have 2 mirrorlists (one with and one without tainted software)
> and let the user decide which one he sets up on his system.
+1 for two mirror lists.
This is probably the simplest solu
2010/12/8 Maurice Batey :
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:36:26 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>
>> Including current version it was/is available via BitTorrent
>> AND FTP download from the mirrors.
>
> When I tried to download the Mandriva 2010.1 PowerPack .iso file
> (when it first appeared), the Mandr
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:36:26 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> Including current version it was/is available via BitTorrent
> AND FTP download from the mirrors.
When I tried to download the Mandriva 2010.1 PowerPack .iso file
(when it first appeared), the Mandriva site offered only BitTorrent.
2010/12/8 Oliver Burger :
> Let's devide the repos in those packages, that can be distibuted everywhere
> and those that can't and let the mirror maintainers chose if or if not they
> are willing to mirror the second one.
That was one of the first suggestions in the whole discussion. The
only prob
"herman" schrieb am 2010-12-08
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:35 -0700, Nex6 wrote:
> > I personally would follow the fedora model.
> Fedora is same as Mandriva and Suse. See Livna and Packman
> respectively.
We are no company that has to be concerned with selling its product in some
strange country
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:35 -0700, Nex6 wrote:
> > Fedora does not have such software.
> I personally would follow the fedora model.
Fedora is same as Mandriva and Suse. See Livna and Packman
respectively.
On 12/8/2010 5:47 AM, Anssi Hannula wrote:
Wolfgang Bornath kirjoitti:
2010/12/8 andre999:
Ok, I think, how many other distros have such repositories. Â According
to
comments on the list : none.
Oh, really? Some (like Mandriva) do not have such a repository because
they do not distribute such
On 8 December 2010 15:59, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Ahmad Samir kirjoitti:
>> Debian has a non-US repo... etc
>
> There hasn't been a non-US repo in Debian releases in years. It existed
> due to cryptographic regulations in the US, IIRC.
>
> --
> Anssi Hannula
>
OK, thanks for the correction.
--
A
Ahmad Samir kirjoitti:
> Debian has a non-US repo... etc
There hasn't been a non-US repo in Debian releases in years. It existed
due to cryptographic regulations in the US, IIRC.
--
Anssi Hannula
Wolfgang Bornath kirjoitti:
> 2010/12/8 Daniel Kreuter :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Wolfgang Bornath
>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, really? Some (like Mandriva) do not have such a repository because
>>> they do not distribute such software at all, PLF does that for
>>> Mandriva. What about
Michael Scherer kirjoitti:
> Ubuntu has a multiverse repository, and there is also various ppa, and
> medibuntu ( http://medibuntu.org/ ). Medibuntu is a fork of the PLF
> project ( even if they never credited us for the content of their start
> page ... ). Ubuntu is not as rigorous than Fedora or
Wolfgang Bornath kirjoitti:
> 2010/12/8 andre999 :
>> Ok, I think, how many other distros have such repositories. Â According
>> to
>> comments on the list : none.
>
> Oh, really? Some (like Mandriva) do not have such a repository because
> they do not distribute such software at all,
In theory on
On 8 December 2010 11:39, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> 2010/12/8 Ahmad Samir :
>>
>> For Fedora, being the most legally-challenged distro around, they
>> don't include any patented software in their official repos at all,
>> not even mp3 playback is possible in a default install. They even
>> don't i
Le mercredi 08 décembre 2010 à 09:51 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
> 2010/12/8 andre999 :
> >
> > By presenting a special set of repositories for patent-affected software, we
> > could be seen as justifying these patent sharks.
> > In their minds, why else would be accommodate them ?
>
> Paten
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>
> Yes, I know. The question was: do they have those patented software
> within the same repo as all the other software or do they have an
> extra repo for that.
>
>
> --
> wobo
>
-
*Main* - Officially supported software.
-
2010/12/8 Daniel Kreuter :
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Wolfgang Bornath
> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, really? Some (like Mandriva) do not have such a repository because
>> they do not distribute such software at all, PLF does that for
>> Mandriva. What about Ubuntu? What about Fedora?
> In Ubuntu
Ahmad Samir schrieb am 2010-12-08
> On 8 December 2010 10:51, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> For Fedora, being the most legally-challenged distro around, they
> don't include any patented software in their official repos at all,
> not even mp3 playback is possible in a default install. They even
> don
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> Oh, really? Some (like Mandriva) do not have such a repository because
> they do not distribute such software at all, PLF does that for
> Mandriva. What about Ubuntu? What about Fedora?
>
>
In Ubuntu you have some patented software in the r
2010/12/8 Ahmad Samir :
>
> For Fedora, being the most legally-challenged distro around, they
> don't include any patented software in their official repos at all,
> not even mp3 playback is possible in a default install. They even
> don't include any non-free stuff, so no nVidia and ATI proprietar
On 8 December 2010 10:51, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> 2010/12/8 andre999 :
>>
>> By presenting a special set of repositories for patent-affected software, we
>> could be seen as justifying these patent sharks.
>> In their minds, why else would be accommodate them ?
>
> Patented software is a reality
2010/12/8 andre999 :
>
> By presenting a special set of repositories for patent-affected software, we
> could be seen as justifying these patent sharks.
> In their minds, why else would be accommodate them ?
Patented software is a reality in some countries. You can't discuss it
away with logical r
25 matches
Mail list logo
