On Tuesday 02 October 2012 14:58, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > IMHO a package is "not free" anyway as soon as it qualifies for > "tainted" - whatever reason.
That is subject to jurisdiction. I happen to live in a country where software patents doesn't apply. Therefore patented software is Free software in my country. And I believe that is the situation in several european countries, and other countries around the world. Even FSF and Stallman says this. If the software is not patented in "your" country, it is Free software in "your" country. And up until now, I've had the impression that this is the difference between the tainted and nonfree repos. And we should keep it this way. As to what we should do with packages that are both patented and proprietary, I seriously do not see the problem of having them in the nonfree tree. Patented or not, they are Nonfree software, and therefore belong in the nonfree tree. If we should further distinguish between nonfree and patented nonfree, then we should do that inside the nonfree tree. -- Johnny A. Solbu PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
