3 ms·

> > For example, Gentoo Linux, another community driven distribution, cannot and will not redistribute proprietary software at all. > This is quite a poorly ch

> > For example, Gentoo Linux, another community driven distribution, cannot and will not redistribute proprietary software at all. > This is quite a poorly chosen example since Gentoo will not ship binaries period. To this day I don't think there is an official host for binary packages (binhost). This is incorrect. The original statement by the blogger, though a bit ambiguous, is technically entirely correct. While shipping binary packages is not the norm for Gentoo, some binary packages are available and Gentoo absolutely does provide and redistribute a selected number of binary packages (not as binhost but as ebuilds). Examples including firefox-bin, icedtea-bin, chromium-bin, or pypy-bin. The tarballs of these binary packages are built by Gentoo developers and hosted on the official Gentoo servers and mirrors. On the other hand, the official Portage package manager also has many proprietary software available for installation. But in this case, only the ebuild script can be hosted, putting the actual tarballs on official Gentoo servers and mirrors is strictly prohibited. Only the raw upstream source can be used. A common example is Google Chrome. Another peculiar one is Oracle JRE/JDK - for a long time, the Gentoo ebuild was not even allowed to automatically download Oracle Java. Instead, the ebuild asks the user going to Oracle, agreeing with the license, and downloading it manually and putting it into Portage's cache. All because of legal requirements that must be obeyed by Gentoo. This is what the author mean by Gentoo "cannot and will not redistribute proprietary software at all".

AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> The original statement by the blogger, though a bit ambiguous, is technically entirely correct. Still, it is misleading at best. First, because the entire contention is from open but patent-encumbered software (codecs) rather than outright non-distributable binaries. And second, because I'm assuming these *-bin packages are the exception, rather than the rule (e.g., same as the Gentoo LiveCD contents), so it's malicious to point it as an example of anything. Gentoo is still (mostly) a source-based distribution, and when you finish the default install, you end up with a system that contains patent-encumbered software and can play/encode H264 out of the box. And render Truetype points, etc. IANAL, but it is dubious that the patent owner would make a difference based on whether the system was distributed as binaries or as "source code + automated build scripts", but apparently that is what the distro decided. A much better example for the article to use would have been SuSE, which, despite being set in Europe, practically follows Fedora's reluctance to ship patent-encumbered software to the letter. In fact, SuSE has already followed Fedora on the choice to cripple Mesa (which is what triggered TFA). But even choosing SUSE as an example would (conveniently) leave a big elephant on the room: Ubuntu. While perhaps not in the default install, Ubuntu is literally one click away from giving you access to all kinds of patent-encumbered software (via a prominent checkbox visible on the first dialog of the setup program, not a 3rd party mirror or anything). And as mentioned, even Debian is not as much on the "afraid" side as as Fedora is. So different distributions do have different interpretations/responses to the same law in the same jurisdiction, making the entire "Law Compliance Cannot Be Voted" argument easily proved wrong. Heck, even the different distros' legal teams often give different advice...
- zinekeller 4y ago
  > And render Truetype points IIRC it's ClearType that have (at the time, they're expired now) patent issues, not TrueType. While there were patents for TrueType, it's not intentionally enforced.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    No, it's really TrueType. Font hinting. I don't know if the patents were not enforced at all, but it was a headache for many years since many distros would cripple truetype renderers. Never used cleartype or any type of RGB subpixel rendering since it prevents rotating the displays.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

> The original statement by the blogger, though a bit ambiguous, is technically entirely correct. Still, it is misleading at best. First, because the entire contention is from open but patent-encumbered software (codecs) rather than outright non-distributable binaries. And second, because I'm assuming these *-bin packages are the exception, rather than the rule (e.g., same as the Gentoo LiveCD contents), so it's malicious to point it as an example of anything. Gentoo is still (mostly) a source-based distribution, and when you finish the default install, you end up with a system that contains patent-encumbered software and can play/encode H264 out of the box. And render Truetype points, etc. IANAL, but it is dubious that the patent owner would make a difference based on whether the system was distributed as binaries or as "source code + automated build scripts", but apparently that is what the distro decided. A much better example for the article to use would have been SuSE, which, despite being set in Europe, practically follows Fedora's reluctance to ship patent-encumbered software to the letter. In fact, SuSE has already followed Fedora on the choice to cripple Mesa (which is what triggered TFA). But even choosing SUSE as an example would (conveniently) leave a big elephant on the room: Ubuntu. While perhaps not in the default install, Ubuntu is literally one click away from giving you access to all kinds of patent-encumbered software (via a prominent checkbox visible on the first dialog of the setup program, not a 3rd party mirror or anything). And as mentioned, even Debian is not as much on the "afraid" side as as Fedora is. So different distributions do have different interpretations/responses to the same law in the same jurisdiction, making the entire "Law Compliance Cannot Be Voted" argument easily proved wrong. Heck, even the different distros' legal teams often give different advice...

zinekeller 4y ago
> And render Truetype points IIRC it's ClearType that have (at the time, they're expired now) patent issues, not TrueType. While there were patents for TrueType, it's not intentionally enforced.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  No, it's really TrueType. Font hinting. I don't know if the patents were not enforced at all, but it was a headache for many years since many distros would cripple truetype renderers. Never used cleartype or any type of RGB subpixel rendering since it prevents rotating the displays.