# Description of problem: The License Agreement in the installer for Mageia 9-alpha1 (and Mageia 8) contains the following sentence: "For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a license for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details)." This is no longer correct. As of 2017, all of the MP3 patents have expired, making it a free format. Modern Linux distributions (including Mageia) no longer restrict the distribution of MP3-related packages (unless the package also supports other codecs that are still patented). As it stands, the License Agreement risks unneccesarily scaring users away from using MP3, or scaring them into sticking with Windows (if they absolutely need MP3 support). I suggest replacing the string "MP3" in the License Agreement, with the name of a codec that's still patented to this day. If you want another audio codec, then "AAC" could work. The most prominent patented codec that comes to my mind, though, is "H.264", due to its widespread use in both streaming and in Blu-ray video. The URL (mp3licensing.com) will need to be replaced, or removed altogether if no similar URL can be found for our example of choice. # Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): * Mageia 9-alpha1 * Mageia 8 # How reproducible: Always # Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start the Classical Installer (I haven't tested the Live ISOs, or the netinstaller), for either Mageia 9 alpha-1 or Mageia 8 2. Select "Install Mageia" from the GRUB menu 3. Select your preferred language, then click "Next" 4. Scroll down to the bottom paragraph of the License Agreement, and note that it singles out MP3, as an example of patented software
Whiteboard: (none) => MGA8TOO
Thank you for this interesting point. Assigning to Mageiatools for the installer; it probably affects both Classic & Lives, I imagine the License Agreement is the same for both.
Assignee: bugsquad => mageiatools
Whiteboard: MGA8TOO => MGA9TOO, MGA8TOO
This can be fixed at the same time as bug 15373, which is about the license, too. Would our tainted VLC version be a good example to put instead of MP3, or is it better to put no example at all in the license Agreement?
CC: (none) => marja11See Also: (none) => https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15373
When I can push to git again, I intend to change the lines here: https://gitweb.mageia.org/software/drakx/tree/perl-install/messages.pm#n101 into: sub warning_about_patents() { N("Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, our tainted version of VLC contains libraries that may require a license for further usage (see https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws."); } Feel free to beat me to it :-)
(In reply to Marja Van Waes from comment #3) > When I can push to git again, I intend to change the lines here: > > https://gitweb.mageia.org/software/drakx/tree/perl-install/messages.pm#n101 > > into: > > sub warning_about_patents() { > N("Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free > Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, our > tainted version of VLC contains libraries that may require a license for "libraries" isn't the best word, because those only cover part of the issue with patents. Maybe "components" would be better? > further usage (see https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html for more > details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your > local laws."); > } >
That sounds good to me for now. In the long term, it might be a good idea to use the License Agreement as an opportunity, to raise awareness of what our "Tainted" repository is for (yes, Main/Nonfree/Tainted repositories are discussed in the "Help" windows during installation, but when our users are seeking legal advice, their lawyers would probably consult our License Agreement, not the contents of our Help windows). But this might require us to make more substantive changes to the License Agreement, which would be risky without seeking French legal advice beforehand.