On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 12:20 -0700, James Mason wrote:

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 13:07 -0600, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

...

It's my understanding that we can use Packman with Studio images. However, maybe someone with more expertise on the legalese, can explain what pitfalls we need to consider when using Packman.

Packman repos *are* available via SUSE Studio.

That part I think we know. :-) I think the question JDD is trying to raise is whether packages that may not meet US legal snuff and are in Packman can be installed into a Studio image without repercussions to the SUSE Studio hosters. I would personally say "yea" but I'm not qualified to answer that specific question. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Στις 23/01/2012 09:30 μμ, ο/η jdd έγραψε:

Le 23/01/2012 20:24, Bryen M Yunashko a écrit :

...

I think the question JDD is trying to raise is whether packages that may not meet US legal snuff and are in Packman can be installed into a Studio image without repercussions to the SUSE Studio hosters.

yes, mostly

...

I would personally say "yea" but I'm not qualified to answer that specific question.

I would also, but fear attachmate wont :-(

and I mean: wont be able to, nothing about willingness there

Place holders are there in this purpose: allow install, dependency solving, but after that an update to packman is necessary.

And I'm sure Pascal will love to have more help :-))

jdd I'm not sure what they use. It's also Ubuntu Studio http://ubuntustudio.org/

Regarding legal issues, SUSE Studio has a section that let's you add a licence, right? We can use that. A good "moto" is: openSUSE Studio with SUSE Studio ;-) Have a lot of fun!!! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

On 2012-01-23 23:13:59 (+0200), Stathis Iosifidis (aka diamond_gr) wrote: [...]

Regarding legal issues, SUSE Studio has a section that let's you add a licence, right? We can use that.

It's not about licenses (copyright) at all: all the software that is in Packman is under an open source license, mostly GPL. Libraries and tools such as mad, lame, ffmpeg, mplayer, etc..., are all under the GPL. The issue is software patents. Those are really two completely different things. So while e.g. mad (an MP3 decoding library) may be used with other software that is GPL, it may potentially not be shipped or used in certain countries where software patents are seen as valid, and are enforced. Most prominently, the USA. In the EU, the current situation is still that software patents are not seen as valid patents (patentability of algorithms, etc...), but organizations such as music industry lobbies or large software vendors from the USA and Japan keep trying to buy politicians to change that. In this particular case (mad), it potentially infringes patents because the implementation is based on a public domain implementation of the MP3 algorithms by Frauenhofer. The Frauenhofer Institut as well as a few other groups (such as Thompson) are part of a patent pool that wants to enforce their patents, especially on MP3. Practically, that means that they want everyone who uses or at least ships an MP3 algorithm implementation (for encoding or decoding) to pay royalties to them. So, as you can see, it is a very different problem. Essentially the reason Packman exists (but also because there was no OBS nor facilities for third party package repositories a long time ago when Packman was started -- remember that it predates openSUSE by quite some years), as Packman is hosted in Germany and, hence, in a region of the world where software patents are (at least currently) not seen as valid by courts and, hence, not enforced. (They are granted by the EPO (European Patent Office) though, which, unlike its name would like to suggest, is not an organism of the EU... oh well, go figure, the bottom line is: it is _very_ complex). My personal opinion on this, which I believe is rather qualified, is that it is *NOT* possible to build an openSUSE spin with SUSE Studio that contains packages that potentially infringe on software patents, for the simple reason that no somewhat larger business would want to take the risk to host it on its infrastructure (specifically, the risk of being sued for distributing software that uses patented algorithms without paying royalties for the right of using them). If it was okay to have openSUSE spins that include such packages on SUSE Studio, then it would also be okay to package those packages on build.opensuse.org. And it isn't. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf

On 2012-01-23 17:46:12 (-0600), Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 23:32 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote: [...] Maybe Studio guys figured it was okay to use Packman, but only if you don't make it publicly available via the Gallery? Or only if the builder makes sure to not include patent-infringing packages regardless of public or private consumption. (But how does the average builder know which package is "verboten"?)

True, that is probably allowed: building with Studio but not hosting it in the Studio Gallery. That means that it would require some infrastructure of its own, at the very least to host the images. [...] cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf

On 2012-01-25 15:08:03 (+0200), Stathis Agrapidis wrote:

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

On 2012-01-23 17:46:12 (-0600), Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

...

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 23:32 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote: [...] Maybe Studio guys figured it was okay to use Packman, but only if you don't make it publicly available via the Gallery?  Or only if the builder makes sure to not include patent-infringing packages regardless of public or private consumption.  (But how does the average builder know which package is "verboten"?)

...

True, that is probably allowed: building with Studio but not hosting it in the Studio Gallery.

...

That means that it would require some infrastructure of its own, at the very least to host the images.

...

[...]

Maybe if the repository gets included but the softwate with the patent problems isn't installed by default then it shouldn't be a legal problem, but I am not really sure about it.

It would still be a patent problem, doesn't make a difference. The issue here is primarily to host and provide the packages. It doesn't require that people install it :)

The other thing that was discussed in the oSC in September was the pattern thing. For starters we could create a pattern including all audio related software or at least a choice of audio applications. Then with a 1-click installer it should be really easy to transform the default installation to an audio installation. That as a fist step. Then we can see how that goes and proceed with a spin.

Hmh. I think it's more complicated than that. If you want a setup for audio, you _definitely_ want to use jack instead of alsa or pulseaudio. And that requires a lot of fiddling around in config files to get it to work. I managed to get most stuff to work properly, but it's quite a lot of config file hacks, in many applications. Oh, and everything KDE is very difficult as well, but that's already the case with pulseaudio (vlc backend is discontinued and doesn't work properly with pulse anyway, mplayer backend is unmaintained and can't even be compiled, the vlc backend works, but needs configuring vlc (not necessarily intuitive) to select the sound backend + it lags when you move around in a song in amarok, and gstreamer... well... it's gstreamer...). So simply transforming a setup into something that is appropriate for using audio applications (such as mixxx, etc...) cannot be simply done through installing software. It also requires modifying a lot of configuration files. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf