On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:39:41 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >IMO, it's leading nowhere if you're reading inbetween the lines. I fail > >to see why we would ship something "heavily patented". > > One might think that using pristine sources in the source rpm is better > than using one with the patented code stripped out. Why "better"? Stripped source code cannot be compiled accidentally. That would be something for the lawyers. Imagine a repo contained an audio application that supported MP3 for several weeks. > And it isn't clear the > patents are violated if the code is shipped in an srpm, but is not in the > binaries we ship. Can't tell. Related to MP3 is a longer list of patents, and "free" MP3 encoders - afaik - haven't been targeted by patent holders. Removing legally problematic source code goes back to the Red Hat Linux era, some time around 8.0 or so. That is, Red Hat has done it. 3rd party contributors to Red Hat Linux (such as old Fedora) have continued doing so. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
