Patent VS license restricted software
bdrung at debian.org
Wed Oct 24 22:47:53 UTC 2012
Should we discuss the following topic in an UDS session?
We have ubuntu-restricted-addons and ubuntu-restricted-extras in the
archive. They depend on packages that are either non-free  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
* 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?
 non-free = not comply with the DFSG
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
More information about the ubuntu-devel