On 10/02/2012 07:50 AM, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
We have software in 4 different flavors:
1. free software (FOSS), most of them distributed under any of the GPL versions
2. non-free software, meaning they can not distributed under such
licenses as the GPL. Mostly it's closed source software (like firmware
for devices like graphic cards or some wifi chips)
3. tainted software, this is cost-free but patented software. In
countries which obey software patents (like USA) it is not allowed to
be distributed.
4. then there is software which is non-free AND tainted.
Of course this special point #4 is a bit bureaucratic. As "tainted"
(aka patented) is the stronger restriction than non-free we should
also place faac into "tainted" as it matches the sentence from the
MGA1 notes anyway (as quoted in Christian's mail).
In any way I agree that this more or less academical dispute about
faac should not make it impossible to make faac available.
That's my point. I get that the official definition says that tainted
stuff should be FOSS. I just don't understand WHY that restriction is
of interest to anybody.
