10:24 p.m.
Hi all,
I've just stumbled across this:
http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
I would highlight this sentence: "We cannot ship yum configs which
enable Livna".
Even if a reference to RPM Fusion can be made in the Fedora wiki, Fedora
cannot ship a config to directly access RPM Fusion. Thus I think that
there is no longer a need for two distinct repositories free/nonfree :-(
Bye,
Andrea.
11:08 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 23:24 +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
Hi all,
I've just stumbled across this:
http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
I would highlight this sentence: "We cannot ship yum configs which
enable Livna".
Even if a reference to RPM Fusion can be made in the Fedora wiki, Fedora
cannot ship a config to directly access RPM Fusion. Thus I think that
there is no longer a need for two distinct repositories free/nonfree :-(
Well, here's a what-if situation: What if Fedora made a reference to RPM
Fusion's "free" repositories? According to Tom, "if someone asserted
their patents against something in Livna, we would need to take the page
down." If the repository that Fedora was referring to was the free one,
it would separate itself from the non-free one and would lessen the
likelihood that someone would assert their patents against it. So even
if someone does that to the non-free repo, perhaps Fedora wouldn't have
to take down its page since it's not referring to that one? (I'm
assuming that it's the repository and not the organization legal is
concerned with)
--
Richi Plana
11:49 p.m.
Il giorno sab, 10/11/2007 alle 16.08 -0700, Richi Plana ha scritto:
Well, here's a what-if situation: What if Fedora made a reference
to RPM
Fusion's "free" repositories? According to Tom, "if someone asserted
their patents against something in Livna, we would need to take the page
down." If the repository that Fedora was referring to was the free one,
it would separate itself from the non-free one and would lessen the
likelihood that someone would assert their patents against it. So even
if someone does that to the non-free repo, perhaps Fedora wouldn't have
to take down its page since it's not referring to that one? (I'm
assuming that it's the repository and not the organization legal is
concerned with)
The free repo *is* the one that is supposed to have software with
potential patent problems:
"Free contains Free and Open Source Software (as defined by the Fedora
Packaging Guidelines) which can't be included in Fedora -- for example
because it might be patent encumbered in the USA. Nonfree contains non
Free and Open Source Software (as defined by the Fedora Licensing
Guidelines), for instance software with publicly available source code
which has some "no commercial use" restrictions or proprietary software
like the graphics drivers from ATI/AMD and Nvidia."
Bye,
Andrea.
10:08 a.m.
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
Hi all,
I've just stumbled across this:
http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
I would highlight this sentence: "We cannot ship yum configs which
enable Livna".
Even if a reference to RPM Fusion can be made in the Fedora wiki, Fedora
cannot ship a config to directly access RPM Fusion. Thus I think that
there is no longer a need for two distinct repositories free/nonfree :-(
Actually there still is, the split was never needed for legal reasons,
some non-free software is perfectly legal to redistribute in the US, the
split was and is necessary because Fedora does not want to promote and
thus does not want to link to, non free software.
Regards,
Hans
10:31 a.m.
On 11.11.2007 11:08, Hans de Goede wrote:
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> I've just stumbled across this:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/257559/
>
> I would highlight this sentence: "We cannot ship yum configs which
> enable Livna".
>
> Even if a reference to RPM Fusion can be made in the Fedora wiki, Fedora
> cannot ship a config to directly access RPM Fusion. Thus I think that
> there is no longer a need for two distinct repositories free/nonfree :-(
Actually there still is, the split was never needed for legal reasons,
some non-free software is perfectly legal to redistribute in the US, the
split was and is necessary because Fedora does not want to promote and
thus does not want to link to, non free software.
Fully agreed. What the Red Had lawyers said was that it's fine to link
to Livna (¹); that doesn't mean the Fedora Board wants to do that (see
the recent discussions on Codec Buddy/Codeine and how some people think
that's a problem). It's IMHO way more likely the Board is willing to
like to a RPM Fusion repo if they can point to a repo that contains only
Open-Source-Software just as Fedora does.
And further: Yes, the best thing about RPM Fusion from my point of view
is that it merges three of the four major Fedora-add-on repos. But for
me it's closely followed by another good thing: splitting non-free and
free software into separate repos. Something I suppose Livna might have
done by none as well if RPM Fusion wouldn't be on the horizon, as
multiple people asked for such a split in Livna.
CU
knurd
(¹) -- or link to RPM Fusion once it started; I don't like it that much
that Livna is used as example in the Fedora discussions with RPM Fusion
soon starting
6217
days inactive
6218
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrea Musuruane -
Hans de Goede -
Richi Plana -
Thorsten Leemhuis