On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 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.
Tainted is not about restrictive license but patents. A free software can have a free license, but do something which is maybe patented.
