2011/7/7 andre999 <[email protected]>: > Anssi Hannula a écrit : >> >> 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. > > This discussion reminds me of the recent Oracle claims of patent > infringement against Google, over Google's use of Java in Android. > These patents were all issued by the US patent office. > Google referred about 100 of these claims to the patent office for > evaluation. > The patent office invalidated all but 17. > And these 17 may yet be invalidated by the courts. > > Google has not yet referred many other of the patent claims for examination > by the patent office. > > So patent claims only _potentially_ result in legal problems. (As well as > only in a few countries.)
"potentially" and "only in a few countries" are not valid arguments - especially for those who live in such countries. > Which makes me think that the free/non-free distinction is probably much > more important. I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in tainted. A free software can not have a restrictive license, if it has it is not free and goes in tainted. -- wobo
