On 20/06/12 13:05, Oliver Burger wrote:
Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w:
Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a
GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository.
The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's
partly nonfree.
Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted.
Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree.
But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and
wikipedia wrong.
So it's a no-go.
Oliver
I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it
that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted?
I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we
catering to a minority and ignoring a majority?
Claire
