On Wed, 06 Jul 2011, Thorsten van Lil wrote: > > The reason why we have tainted is, that there are patents, which restrain > some user to use this software. So, it's a question of legality, which > should get the higher priority. The differentiation if it's free or > not-free is only a question of ideology. > > Therefore, for me the situation is very simple. If there are questionable > patents for a software, we have to put it in tainted (otherwise we destroy > the whole idea of core/non-free/tainted). There is no other option. We may
There is other options. It would also be possible to not include nonfree patented software anywhere.
