Patent VS license restricted software

[Benjamin Drung]

Hi,

Should we discuss the following topic in an UDS session?

Current situation
=================

We have ubuntu-restricted-addons and ubuntu-restricted-extras in the
archive. They depend on packages that are either non-free [1] or could
be covered by patents (or both).

ubuntu-restricted-addons pulls in:
* flashplugin-installer (multiverse)
* gstreamer0.10-fluendo-mp3 (universe)
* gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg (universe)
* gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad (universe)
* gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly (universe)

ubuntu-restricted-extras pulls in:
* ubuntu-restricted-addons (multiverse)
* gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse (multiverse)
* libavcodec-extra-53 (universe)
* unrar (multiverse)
* ttf-mscorefonts-installer (multiverse)

Changes to discuss
==================

* Should we rearrange the restricted packages: One to depend only on
universe packages (patent restricted) and one only on multiverse
(license restricted)?

* Should we replace unrar by unar? Should we install unar by default?

* Should we install the universe packages by default? Should the user
have an opt-out chance at install time?

[1] non-free = not comply with the DFSG

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer