2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil <[email protected]>: > Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath: >> >> 2011/7/8 James Kerr<[email protected]>: >>> >>> This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be >>> re-stated as: >>> >>> Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled >>> in a >>> single tainted repository? >> >> How can tainted software be free software at the same time? >> > > Because free is a matter of license, while tainted is a matter of patents. > For example, the libdvdcss2 is free, as the the source-code is open (GPL) > but it touches the patent issue, so it's tainted.
Yes, if you regard patents not as a criterium for free or non-free then this division makes sense. >From that point of view we need the same structure as PLF (tainted-free and tainted-non-free). -- wobo
