Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific "patented" >> section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in >> countries where it is not a problem. > > While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired software > such as libdvdcss.
How about this: - introduce a new section 'patented' - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg - source packages in 'main' may produce binaries in 'patented' - binary packages in 'main' must not depend on packages in 'patented' - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented' - source and binary packages in 'patented' may depend on package on both 'main' and 'patented' - source packages in 'patented' must not produce binaries in 'main' - packages in 'contrib' and 'non-free' may additionally depend on packages in 'patented' This may sound complicated, but would be helpful for e.g. the xine-lib source package: - all binary packages of ffmpeg would go to 'patented' - the source package 'xine-lib' would produce most binary package in 'main' - the binary package 'libxine1-ffmpeg' would go to 'patented' Distributors (and archive administrators) that fear lawsuits from the MPEG LA could then easily stop mirroring 'patented', but still have a usable section 'main'. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
