Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
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.
"free" means that it can be redistributed with source code, with a free/open
source license.
"non-free" (in terms of the repos) means that it can be redistributed, but
either not with source code, according to the license + or we simply don't
have/can't get the source code.
"tainted" was mostly for packages affected to some extent by tainted patents.
Such packages could be free or non-free, that has nothing to do with being in
"tainted".
Some discussions in the past considered that the likelihood of a patent
impacting a particular software (in the few countries that do accept software
packages to some extent, like the USA), should affect whether it goes into
tainted or not. I don't know what consensus there was on this point, if any.
There were some suggestions that non-free packages should go into "non-free",
even if considered subject to tainted patents. And some proposed excluding
such packages.
So the question is, should a non-free package potentially affected by patents
go into "non-free" or "tainted".
Those more interested in using "free" as much as possible, might tend to say
"non-free", especially if they use "tainted". So as to avoid using any
non-free packages.
Those who consider patents legitimate, among others, might tend to say
"tainted", especially if they use "non-free. So as to avoid using any software
which might be subject to patents. If they live in an area where software
patents risk to be found legitimate, such as the USA.
Of course, those who don't use "non-free" (except for software coming from it's
manufacturer) or "tainted", wouldn't be concerned by this question.
--
André
