On Tuesday 30 October 2012 02:44, andre999 wrote: > If there is some constraint on the redistribution of a package in some > countries, such as patent claims or encryption technology used or > whatever, mirrors in affected countries may reasonably want to avoid > carrying such packages. > For this reason, we created the "tainted" repos, which are optional for > official mirrors. > However we added the additional restriction that packages in tainted > must also be open source, to satisfy those that don't want to install > non-free packages. > > If we want to continue this additional restriction, we would have to > create another set of repos for packages that are both constrained > (tainted) and non-free, in order to carry such packages.
The problem of including nonfree spftware in tainted, is that it no longer is a Free software repo in countries that don't accept software patents. Nonfree software belongs in a nonfree tree. If we need to create a new repo for them, so be it. That is the right thing to do. No one said that the right thing to do would be easy. :-)= > However there are very few packages that meet this restriction. Also > the tainted repos contain relatively few packages, compared with core > and nonfree. What has that got to do with anything? Either a package is Free and open source software, or it is not. wether it belongs in the majority or a tiny minority is not the issue. The issue at stake is our Freedom. I happens to live in a country where the packages in tainted is Free software in every sense of the word. And I don't believe that I'm the only one that is. Tainted is a convenience for those that live in a country that have software patents, not the otherway around. Don't clutter the water for those of us where tainted still is a Free software repo. -- Johnny A. Solbu PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
