mp3 source (but not compiled) in squeak package
 

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org> 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@fedoraproject.org>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

mp3 source (but not compiled) in squeak package
 

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org> 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@fedoraproject.org>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging