On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. How about filing a Trac for the FPC with clarified wording for one or both sections? -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
