2012/10/2 James Kerr <[email protected]>: > 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.
Oops, sorry, I just realize that my question reads just the opposite of what I wanted to say (damn foreign langauge! :) To make my position clearer: IMHO a package is not free when it is subject to a patent. It may be not "non-free" per definition of "non-free software" but is not free nevertheless when it bears any restrictions because of patents or (in some countries) legal issues. It is a difference by strict definition but it makes no difference in practical terms and usage. -- wobo
