On 02/10/2012 13:58, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
2012/10/2 James Kerr <[email protected]>:
On 02/10/2012 12:26, Frank Griffin wrote:
At least for my part, I always viewed tainted as being the equivalent of
PLF,
PLF had both free and non-free repo's.
If you include both free and non-free in tainted, which is probably the
"least bad" solution, then there needs to be a way for FOSS enthusiasts (who
choose to do so) to avoid the non-free packages - perhaps a statement in the
package description would suffice.
Well, are you saying that tainted includes free packages although they
are subject to a patent?
Yes. Those are the only packages that are included at present in
tainted. The fact that a package includes software that may be
encumbered by patent claims does not make it non-free.
Jim
