On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote: > On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the > tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in > tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to > express our stance on the issue in a clearer way...
I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere). There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in tainted, though. -- Anssi Hannula
