2011/7/7 nicolas vigier <[email protected]>: > 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.
Yes, right. I made a mistake there - just replace "restrictive license" with "patents" in my sentence. -- wobo
