On Tuesday 14 August 2007 10:23, Adrian Schröter wrote:

We do plan to support clustering of the build service in the long run. So an external Build Service could reuse the base projects of the opensuse.org build service.

I think "clustering" is misleading here as we want to have a very loosely coupled system. We need methods which enable independent instances of the build service to interact with each other in a coordinated way. The main areas I see are: - Coordination of name spaces, so that there don't arise name conflicts between projects. - Synchronization of built packages for selected projects, so that base projects can be shared by different build services without the need to build them multiple times. - Maybe sharing of sources, so that one build service instance can link sources from another instance. I'm not sure what would the main use cases for this, though.

We are also open for short term hacks until the real distributed approach is implemented.

"Short term hacks" are a very long-lived species, so I guess we will be happier, if we can avoid them. -- Cornelius Schumacher --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 August 2007 2:59 pm, Juergen Weigert wrote:

On Aug 14, 07 10:23:28 +0200, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

On Tuesday 14 August 2007 10:28:13 wrote Dirk Stoecker:

...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Adrian Schröter wrote:

CC'ing to Build-Service.

[.. stripped but still understandable I think ..]

...

...

It is no reason and Novell (in this your lawyers) also knows this, but I understand, that Novell will not fight in these cases, as the company editions don't need tools like this and the end users don't pay enough. Sad but true. Anyway I ask myself how we should get useful laws, when the ones who have to power to fight don't do it.

In general you are right, but see it also from the other side. Novell Legal can not fight against everything and cases like the SCO case do burn already lot's of power of the legal departement. Additionally, I see a problem here, since Novell can not prove to use mldonkey (or any eDonky client) to use for a valid reason in his business.

Maybe one thing: A possibility to circumvent these problems would be a Novell independent BuildService. It could handle all these problems, which Novell cannot handle.

If e.g. a Germany based non-profit organization would provide an equal framework as the Novell buildservice most of the problems would vanish (there would still be illegal/legal problems, but much less than for a worldwide operating company). Anyway to really work well a financial as well as legal support would be required (at least in the startup phase).

Could you/we/your superiors start to really think about starting such an organization? Generally this would mean giving the Novell community a real voice.

I really like the openSUSE buildservice as much as I dislike its limitations.

What do the others here think about it?

We would support this.

Hosting a buildservice outside of Novell's control actually helps Novell as much as it helps the community.

I'd help with legal support. Do we have any suggestions, who such an organization could be?

I've actually been planning on setting up a personal obs cluster at home to replace the old simple system I've been using for years. (though not so much anymore since I do most builds on the production obs now) I've set one up for my day job, so I am certainly familiar with the administration. With all of this discussion, I'm now thinking of making it public. If anyone else wants to help out in any way, I would be happy to hear from you. -- James Oakley jfunk@funktronics.ca --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 August 2007 11:37:54 wrote Dirk Stoecker:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Axel Braun wrote:

...

Am Dienstag 14 August 2007 schrieb Dirk Stoecker:

...

If e.g. a Germany based non-profit organization would provide an equal framework as the Novell buildservice most of the problems would vanish

I think the 'Germany based' would be exactly the problem due to the legal limitations in Germany (Hackerparagraph). If you want your freedom - for P2P software and as well for auditing tools like tcpdump, kismet, aircrack etc . - you need to go abroad.

I agree. Any suggestions? I choosed Germany, as it is still better than the alternative US. I don't want to have a illegal service. Packages which are illegal in most countries are not the aim of my suggestion. They may get built otherwhere. I want a solution for these packages, which are legal in most countries but Novell nevertheless does provide them.

MP3 is the best example for this. Althought it is patented it violates EU laws and still (we will see what future brings) cannot be enforced in the whole EU. So we need to have a SUSE linux without MP3 only because of US limitations.

This is not true, the mp3 patents works also in europe or germany. (It is no software patent, it is a patent of the algorithm). It is just that they these stuff seems to be free for private use, but any product needs to license it also in europe or germany.

The new Hackparagraph you are mentioning is a big drawback, you're right.

yep

As well as the decss problem In Germany as well.

decss might be more a copyright problem than a patent problem. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) email: adrian@suse.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org

Dirk Stoecker wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

...

MP3 is the best example for this. Althought it is patented it violates EU laws and still (we will see what future brings) cannot be enforced in the whole EU. So we need to have a SUSE linux without MP3 only because of US limitations. This is not true, the mp3 patents works also in europe or germany. (It is no software patent, it is a patent of the algorithm).

It is just that they these stuff seems to be free for private use, but any product needs to license it also in europe or germany.

Any court ever said so? There are different points of view whether you ask patent owners and patent offices or the other side who fights software patents. There are many patents here, which are very likely illegal software patents and not enforcable. I think the MP3 patent would have a very hard fight to win, as this was implemented as software from the very beginning.

I think so. IMHO challenging the mp3 patent would end up with Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson giving the license royalty free, yet it would be a long fight and no one is willing to start it.

Also if I'm not completely wrong there is a big difference between using a patent and selling a product using it.

AFAIK patent fees are only required for commercial products. Hence you can use mp3/mpeg/whatever decoder for your personal use or for research however you may not sell it.

But that's why I said such an alternative build service needs financial and legal help :-)

...

...

As well as the decss problem In Germany as well. decss might be more a copyright problem than a patent problem.

Until a short time ago reverse engineering was perfectly legal here to reach interoperability. Don't know the current state. It gets worser and worser each year.

There is a strong pressure from the movie picture industry (European as well). Those guys have some hard money and are not afraid of using it. Best regards Petr --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org

Op Tuesday 14 August 2007 16:09:23 schreef Marcus Rueckert:

On 2007-08-14 15:10:43 +0200, Petr Cerny wrote:

...

I think so. IMHO challenging the mp3 patent would end up with Fraunhofer IIS and Thomson giving the license royalty free, yet it would be a long fight and no one is willing to start it.

AT&T just got a big chunk of money from Microsoft.

Which has been overturned, last week. http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto080620072018217961 -- Richard Bos We are borrowing the world of our children, It is not inherited from our parents. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org