On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > 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. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I think one can reasonably see how what you're saying doesn't necessarily follow from what's written. The section on MP3 should be changed to make this more clear, to make things easier for both packagers and reviewers. > > 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. I didn't mean to imply that it was, or either ineptitude or maliciousness. Just lack of clarity. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
