Comments on: apt http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:22:13 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Mike’s Journal » Blog Archive » qed http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-426 Mike’s Journal » Blog Archive » qed Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:11:57 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-426 [...] A few weeks ago I did a post about apt-get and security, and how autopackage affects all that. [...] [...] A few weeks ago I did a post about apt-get and security, and how autopackage affects all that. [...]

]]> By: Mike http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-425 Mike Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:37:04 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-425 I did no such thing. Please be precise in your characterisation of other peoples arguments. To recap, I said: * Red Hat ship a Java reimplementation but not Mono, and Novell vice-versa * Red Hat have never satisfactorily explained why not, except for generic "it's the lawyers" handwaving * This is bad You are the one who brought MP3 decoding into this and no, it is NOT well explained, the official answer is here: http://fedora.redhat.com/About/ "The Free and open source multimedia codecs such as the Ogg family of codecs are superior, and they are not patent-encumbered. Never have been, never will be. That's why we support Ogg Vorbis (lossy) and FLAC (lossless) for general audio, Speex for speech, and Ogg Theora for video. For those people who insist upon using mp3, it's not difficult to figure out how to get these players. Still, we'd much rather change the world instead of going along with it." This is a very poor answer, not only does it completely gloss over the issue of X11/BSD vs GPL licensing and patent clauses which Havoc Pennington has identified as the root cause before, but it comes off as incredibly arrogant. Anyway, you took us off on a tangent. The core issue is that distributions can and will drop any software at any time, as they see fit, and there is no requirement for them to explain or justify their actions. Which is bad! I did no such thing. Please be precise in your characterisation of other peoples arguments. To recap, I said:

* Red Hat ship a Java reimplementation but not Mono, and Novell vice-versa
* Red Hat have never satisfactorily explained why not, except for generic “it’s the lawyers” handwaving
* This is bad

You are the one who brought MP3 decoding into this and no, it is NOT well explained, the official answer is here:

http://fedora.redhat.com/About/

“The Free and open source multimedia codecs such as the Ogg family of codecs are superior, and they are not patent-encumbered. Never have been, never will be. That’s why we support Ogg Vorbis (lossy) and FLAC (lossless) for general audio, Speex for speech, and Ogg Theora for video.

For those people who insist upon using mp3, it’s not difficult to figure out how to get these players. Still, we’d much rather change the world instead of going along with it.”

This is a very poor answer, not only does it completely gloss over the issue of X11/BSD vs GPL licensing and patent clauses which Havoc Pennington has identified as the root cause before, but it comes off as incredibly arrogant.

Anyway, you took us off on a tangent. The core issue is that distributions can and will drop any software at any time, as they see fit, and there is no requirement for them to explain or justify their actions. Which is bad!

]]> By: creo http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-424 creo Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:34:16 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-424 "The real reason as explained to me was that there are no good BSD/X11 licensed MP3 decoders, and it’s the incompatibility clause in the GPL that causes problems." What the heck. Its quite suprising. ever seen http://mp3licensing.com/. look up the patent numbers some time "And I’m sorry but I don’t consider “people will poke holes” to be a valid reason for not explaining something - for hopefully obvious reasons!" You just basically made the assertion that you dont even consider mp3 patents a good reason to not ship it with Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu by default. So its useless even bothering to try and explain legal stuff to any layman. “The real reason as explained to me was that there are no good BSD/X11 licensed MP3 decoders, and it’s the incompatibility clause in the GPL that causes problems.”

What the heck. Its quite suprising. ever seen http://mp3licensing.com/. look up the patent numbers some time

“And I’m sorry but I don’t consider “people will poke holes” to be a valid reason for not explaining something – for hopefully obvious reasons!”

You just basically made the assertion that you dont even consider mp3 patents a good reason to not ship it with Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu by default. So its useless even bothering to try and explain legal stuff to any layman.

]]> By: Mike http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-423 Mike Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:22:15 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-423 MP3 support was never clearly explained - other than "patents" which is too vague. The real reason as explained to me was that there are no good BSD/X11 licensed MP3 decoders, and it's the incompatibility clause in the GPL that causes problems. So Red Hat would be happy to ship a BSD licensed MP3 decoder. And I'm sorry but I don't consider "people will poke holes" to be a valid reason for not explaining something - for hopefully obvious reasons! MP3 support was never clearly explained – other than “patents” which is too vague. The real reason as explained to me was that there are no good BSD/X11 licensed MP3 decoders, and it’s the incompatibility clause in the GPL that causes problems. So Red Hat would be happy to ship a BSD licensed MP3 decoder.

And I’m sorry but I don’t consider “people will poke holes” to be a valid reason for not explaining something – for hopefully obvious reasons!

]]> By: Creo http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-422 Creo Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:57:12 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-422 "Red Hat say it’s a legal issue indeed, but apparently Novell and Canonical disagree. Moreover, Red Hat won’t explain exactly what the issue is." Ya right. If you ever learned anything but legal issues it is that you dont explain everything in minute detail because everybody who wants to try and poke holes will do that anyway and nitpick. Mp3 support for example is very clearly explained and still hasnt resolved anything at all except more people asking about stuff they dont really have a clue about. "Anyway, I think you’re dwelling on the precise example. There’s no obligation for them to explain their actions and as a result they don’t. distros can and do drop or modify any software at any time, which I find unacceptable. " Yes people are dwelling on it because it is FUD. Every package being moved in or out of the distribution has precise reasons. People just dont drop stuff out of their fancy details. For fedora anything being moved out of core can be maintained by anyone interested in it as long as it is open source and legally unencumbered. Come up with a better example next time “Red Hat say it’s a legal issue indeed, but apparently Novell and Canonical disagree. Moreover, Red Hat won’t explain exactly what the issue is.”

Ya right. If you ever learned anything but legal issues it is that you dont explain everything in minute detail because everybody who wants to try and poke holes will do that anyway and nitpick. Mp3 support for example is very clearly explained and still hasnt resolved anything at all except more people asking about stuff they dont really have a clue about.

“Anyway, I think you’re dwelling on the precise example. There’s no obligation for them to explain their actions and as a result they don’t. distros can and do drop or modify any software at any time, which I find unacceptable. ”

Yes people are dwelling on it because it is FUD. Every package being moved in or out of the distribution has precise reasons. People just dont drop stuff out of their fancy details. For fedora anything being moved out of core can be maintained by anyone interested in it as long as it is open source and legally unencumbered. Come up with a better example next time

]]> By: Mike http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-421 Mike Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:32:39 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-421 Red Hat say it's a legal issue indeed, but apparently Novell and Canonical disagree. Moreover, Red Hat won't explain exactly what the issue is. Anyway, I think you're dwelling on the precise example. There's no obligation for them to explain their actions and as a result they don't - distros can and do drop or modify any software at any time, which I find unacceptable. Red Hat say it’s a legal issue indeed, but apparently Novell and Canonical disagree. Moreover, Red Hat won’t explain exactly what the issue is.

Anyway, I think you’re dwelling on the precise example. There’s no obligation for them to explain their actions and as a result they don’t – distros can and do drop or modify any software at any time, which I find unacceptable.

]]> By: Rack http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/apt/#comment-420 Rack Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:42:07 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=10#comment-420 "For instance Red Hat don’t ship Novells reimplementation of a well known companies technology (.NET), but they do ship their own reimplementation of a well known companies technology (Java). There’s no legal or policy basis for the exclusion of software in any existing distribution." This is a poor example because this is in fact a legal issue. Whether you understand the legal issues involved in a detailed way to make such a claim is a different thing. Very few people do but to suggest that this is somehow non legal is not a misleading claim “For instance Red Hat don’t ship Novells reimplementation of a well known companies technology (.NET), but they do ship their own reimplementation of a well known companies technology (Java). There’s no legal or policy basis for the exclusion of software in any existing distribution.”

This is a poor example because this is in fact a legal issue. Whether you understand the legal issues involved in a detailed way to make such a claim is a different thing. Very few people do but to suggest that this is somehow non legal is not a misleading claim

]]>