On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such >>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference: >>> >>> 1. All non-free goes into non-free >>> >>> 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of >>> licensing) will go into tainted. >>> >>> That's all. Clear and simple. >>> >>> The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by >>> tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go >>> to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status. >> >> Indeed. >> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses >> says: >> >> "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." >> >> Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe: >> - "core" hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere >> (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that) >> - "nonfree" hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere >> (same) >> - "tainted" hosts all the rest, be it free software or not. > > Third point is wrong, "a license that is might be free or open > source", which, I think, means only software with an open source > software License.
I understand this as: software that might be free or open source => can be not free or open source. "might" expressed the possibility, not the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free software. > Although the wording should be clearer / more precise. Indeed. Romain
