On 6 December 2010 12:37, Daniel Kreuter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On 6 December 2010 09:29, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: >> > With regard to the naming of the repository dediocated to software >> > tainted >> > with a patent, etc., How about "non-GPL"? I think that such a name >> > should be >> > well understood by users of nearly any language, particularly if they >> > are >> > familiar with the GPL. >> > >> > My2cents >> > -- >> > Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. >> > Registered Linux User 247790 >> > ICQ 41060744 >> > >> >> Read the afro-mentioned thread again; most of those stuff are released >> under a GPL/GPL-like license (faad and faac packages for example, for >> playing back and encoding using the AAC audio codec, respectively), >> they're free open source software, but they infringe some patents. >> >> -- >> Ahmad Samir > > Why don't we call it universe or something like that? It's a neutral meaning > where also packages without patents and such with patents can be stored in. > > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > Greetings > > Daniel Kreuter > > > >
Because Ubuntu already has a repo called "universal"? that's a similar reason to why it wasn't called "restricted", because restricted is used by distros that offer a commercial repo as in "pay to use some more stuff". -- Ahmad Samir
