On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 14:55, Frank Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/24/2011 09:45 AM, Romain d'Alverny wrote: >> >> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses >> >> "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be >> free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in >> certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues." >> >> and >> >> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mirrors_policy#tainted >> >> "stuff we think we can redistribute, but that may have some patent >> issues or other restrictions in other countries" >> >> look like consistent with each other, althought the "what belongs / is >> allowed here must still be discussed" indeed looks like it's not >> frozen yet. > > The reason I ask is that, in perusing the PLF package descriptions which > include the reason the package is in PLF, the criteria seems to be "Mandriva > was afraid to include this in main/contrib for <fill in your own reason from > a large list>" .
So in the MDV context, that was valid for anything, true. > The Mageia policies try to enumerate specific reasons why > things will be put in tainted, but don't explcitly say that there's anything > we *wouldn't* put in tainted. So it's hard to know whether tainted == PLF > or not. Well I believe you should see this first as a concentric thing: Mageia is made of core, nonfree and tainted. * free software (OSI/FSF) goes in core; * that for which we don't have source but can redistribute go in nonfree; checked on a case-by-case basis; * all the rest goes into tainted on a case-by-case study again; things that likely either: - have no free license but under really significant patent-threat; Indeed, it should be distinctively made clear whether: * tainted keeps a focus on free software that is under risk, * or if it has a "all the rest that doesn't qualify for core or nonfree" I'd favour the latter as a default rule, keeping the case-by-case study for inclusion and leaving real life situations help us sort this out - it's really not easy to draw a general rule out of only a few practical cases. Anyway, two definitions is bad, so we should move it in a single place. Romain
