On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 01:20:47PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Right, I saw that, but it's not clear if MP3 falls under "not allowed to > > ship even as source code". If that's the case, shouldn't we just say so? > Then you would need to explain what you're thinking. If a package includes MP3 source code but does not enable it, that literally complies with "MP3 encoding and decoding support is not included in any Fedora application", which is the directive in the Forbidden Items section. It's my understanding that at least one open source MP3 implementation operates under this theory. The question is whether that's actually good enough, or whether MP3 actually falls under "patents or trademarks that we are not allowed to ship even as source code". Following the logic of the-exception-proves-the-rule, that last statement implies that *is* source code which includes patents which we *are* able to ship in that form. Again, is MP3 included? My impression had been that it is not, and that we always patch it out, but then I came across this reviewed, accepted package which has been in Fedora for three and a half years, so I wanted to check if that was a mistake or if my attitude had been over-zealous. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
