Re: mpeg encoder patents, Was: Bug#501190: ITP: moonlight
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
> same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can
> not be built with the software contained in main.
s/can not be built/can not be built and installed/
It's necessary, but not sufficient, for the package to build from
‘main’: one of the example use cases for ‘contrib’ is “wrapper
packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free programs”,
and ‘contrib’ is a haven for packages that, on *installation*,
download and install non-free software. Even if such a package can
itself be built from ‘main’, it's still not a candidate for inclusion
> I do not see why we should change this invariant to pander
> to software patents.
Agreed, with the caveat of “software patents that are known to be
actively enforced”, to forestall the obvious argument about *every*
non-trivial program likely violating *some* patent.
\ “Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything |
`\ you know.” —Sassan Tat |