On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:58:38 -0400, Matthew Miller 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". The MP3 codec is patented => we must not ship it at all => not 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? Same as above. > 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. Doing reviews isn't easy. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.4-2.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.08 0.18 0.21 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
