On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dale Huckeby a écrit : > > On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote: > > John a écrit : > > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:28:26 +0100 > Maarten Vanraes wrote: > > Op vrijdag 03 december 2010 10:45:05 schreef Ahmad > Samir: > [...] > > The kernel uses the word "tainted" when it > detects the nvidia > proprietary module for example, (which > admittedly gave me a bit of > shock the first time I saw it :)). > > > Heh, i had the same reaction. > > >From all the proposed names, I think "tainted" > is the best one, as the > > packages in there are in a "grey" zone, i.e. not > totally illegal > everywhere, but illegal only in some places in > the world. And in > reality the existence of a patent doesn't > necessarily mean it's > enforceable in a court of law (the only way we'd > know for sure is if > someone actually does try to sue)... my 0.02€ > worth :) > > > Generally only potentially "illegal" in some countries. > "Tainted" means contaminated, polluted. A lot stronger than > potentially "illegal". (Really only actionable in a civil > sense, not > criminally illegal, as well.) > A package could end up there due to an apparently credible > rumour, > later discredited. (Anyone remember SCO ?) > > > I agree. Problematic comes closer to "potentially illegal", so I > looked > up some synonyms: ambiguous, debatable, dubious, > iffy, suspect, speculative, precarious, suspicious, uncertain, > unsettled, in addition to problematic itself. Personally > I like iffy, which is both short and to the point, but I think > several > of these would do. WDYT? > > Dale Huckeby > > A much better set of choices. > (Thanks for looking these up. Good idea.) > > Let's remember that the question for these packages is not the > quality of their functioning - but rather the advisability to use > them, for other reasons, in some countries. > So I think that it is better to avoid words that could question the > QUALITY of the packages. > > Words in the list like > ambiguous, debatable, problematic, and speculative > avoid questioning the quality ... but could be too long or too formal. > Or just not catchy enough ;) > ("Iffy" might be ok - certainly catchy enough.) > > Additional words I found in Roget's thesaurus, along the same lines : > > Associated more with debatable : > arguable, contestable, controvertible, disputable, questionable, > > Associated more with controversial : > confutable, deniable, mistakable, moot > > Of these additional words, I think that "contestable", "disputable", > and "controversial" are probably closest to the SENSE of the > repositories. > But maybe too formal ? > > Many of these words could be good choices. > And maybe someone will come up with some more ? > > my 2 cents :) > > - André > > > What about: main, free, non-free? > In main is everything what belongs to the core, free contains only > packages which are under a free license and in non-free are those which > aren't clear if free or not (what you mentioned earlier in this discussion). > > All three names are as clear as possible what's meant.
The license of the packages is not in question (they are free), the patent (etc) situation is. -- Anssi Hannula
