2011/7/9 andre999 <[email protected]>: > Wolfgang Bornath a écrit : >> >> 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). > > As well, the question of patent claims is a totally hypothetical problem, in > almost every country -- including the USA -- for mirrors that carry distros > like Mageia. > (In the USA, the patent office used to systematically refuse patent claims > on software. And patents are only examined for conflicting US patents > before being registered. Not for the acceptability of the patent itself.) > > So basically, tainted is for the benefit of those who would like to support > software patents.
You say that people who obey to the laws of their country are to blame for obeying these laws? That's ridiculous. The fact that nobody (in FOSS community) has been called to court yet does not mean that the related laws do not exist! The Debian paper (Romain linked to) has an answer to the reasons. Besides, tainted is not only about patents, it's also about software which is illegal in certain countries (like libdvdcss). -- wobo
