On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'd say it was a mistake, and you were correct. No reviewer is infallible, myself included. -J > > -- > Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
