Hello,
as this discussion has come to a standstill, could we please restart this to
get some results
and some decisions? This is going on for some months, back and forth and seems
we
have come nowhere.
Or has there already been some progress, which i have overseen, besides this:
http://mageia
development mailing-list odjjhxpcy38dnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
>>> non-free+tainted RPMs?
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:04
in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
>> From: Wolfgang Bornath
>> To: Mageia development mailing-list
>> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we
on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:05
in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
[snip]
> We have a different perception of
> laws, so it seems.
Very likely you are subject to different laws.
They vary a lot from place to place.
On 13 July 2011 14:27, nicolas vigier wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote:
>
>> > Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
>> > From: Wolfgang Bornath
>> > To: Mageia development mailing-list
>> > Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
> > From: Wolfgang Bornath
> > To: Mageia development mailing-list
> > Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
> > non-f
On 12 July 2011 23:14, Renaud MICHEL wrote:
> On mardi 12 juillet 2011 at 22:48, andre999 wrote :
>> I noticed that all packages in "tainted" contain ".tainted." in the name.
>> rsync permits adding the option
>> --exclude '.tainted.'
>> to permit excluding such packages if a mirror wants to.
>
>
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 23:08, Balcaen John wrote:
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote:
[...]
For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
be approached by the patent holder.
(If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
I ho
So there seems to be a wish for an other answer to this request :
https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1730
Faac (and rpms built with it ) might appear at least in tainted repo ?
same as they are in plf ... or in Debian squeeze multimedia repo, or in
ATrpms repo for Fedora 15
2011/7/12 Dexter Morgan :
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Backlund wrote:
>> andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48:
>>>
>>> So we could eliminate the "tainted" repos, to facilitate putting packages
>>> in
>>> core or non-free as appropriate.
>>> There may have to be a few adjustments to show (
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48:
>>
>> So we could eliminate the "tainted" repos, to facilitate putting packages
>> in
>> core or non-free as appropriate.
>> There may have to be a few adjustments to show (or not) the packages
>> tagged
>>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 23:08, Balcaen John wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
>> be approached by the patent holder.
>> (If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
> I hope you're not s
andre999 skrev 12.7.2011 23:48:
So we could eliminate the "tainted" repos, to facilitate putting packages in
core or non-free as appropriate.
There may have to be a few adjustments to show (or not) the packages tagged
"tainted", but that shouldn't be difficult.
Wouldn't that be easier ?
(At the
On mardi 12 juillet 2011 at 22:48, andre999 wrote :
> I noticed that all packages in "tainted" contain ".tainted." in the name.
> rsync permits adding the option
> --exclude '.tainted.'
> to permit excluding such packages if a mirror wants to.
You should not do that, because you will end up with a
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 16:48:58 andre999 wrote:
[...]
>
> For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
> be approached by the patent holder.
> (If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
I hope you're not serious when writing thoses lines.
--
Balcaen John
2011/7/12 andre999 :
>
> For all these reasons, I think that it is much more appropriate to wait to
> be approached by the patent holder.
> (If not ourselves, then some other distro.)
> And if that means that our constrained ("tainted") repos are almost empty,
> wouldn't that simplify things ?
I s
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/12 andre999:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/9 andre999:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerr:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could
b
2011/7/12 Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. :
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
>> From: Wolfgang Bornath
>> To: Mageia development mailing-list
>> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
>> non-free+tainted RPMs?
> Message-ID:
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:24 +0200
> From: Wolfgang Bornath
> To: Mageia development mailing-list
> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put
> non-free+tainted RPMs?
Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
On 12.07.2011 04:42, andre999 wrote:
> Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
>> Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just
>> released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here:
>> http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce:
>> http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ).
>>
>
2011/7/12 andre999 :
> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
>>
>> 2011/7/9 andre999:
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil:
>
> Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
>>
>> 2011/7/8 James Kerr:
>>>
>>> This thread has strayed far from the origi
Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just
released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here:
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce:
http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ).
Romain
Interesting reading.
Warning against parano
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/9 andre999:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerr:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and t
2011/7/9 andre999 :
> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
>>
>> 2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil:
>>>
>>> Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerr:
>
> This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
> re-stated as:
>
> Should tainted f
Speaking of the software patent stuff, the Debian Project just
released a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ here:
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq (announce:
http://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110709 ).
Romain
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil:
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerr:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled
in a
single
2011/7/8 Thorsten van Lil :
> Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
>>
>> 2011/7/8 James Kerr:
>>>
>>> This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
>>> re-stated as:
>>>
>>> Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled
>>> in a
>>> singl
Am 08.07.2011 10:42, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
2011/7/8 James Kerr:
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled in a
single tainted repository?
How can tainted software be free sof
2011/7/8 James Kerr :
> This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
> re-stated as:
>
> Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled in a
> single tainted repository?
How can tainted software be free software at the same time?
--
wobo
This thread has strayed far from the original question, which could be
re-stated as:
Should tainted free software and tainted nonfree software be commingled
in a single tainted repository?
Given Mageia's commitment to the promotion of free software, I believe
that they should not. If Mageia
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/8 andre999:
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/7 nicolas vigier:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free
2011/7/8 andre999 :
> Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
>>
>> 2011/7/7 nicolas vigier:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>>>
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free
Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
2011/7/7 nicolas vigier:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license
2011/7/7 nicolas vigier :
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>
>> I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
>> am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
>> non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in
>> tai
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> I must admit I do not understand the cause of this discussion, maybe I
> am thinking in too simple ways. Free goes in core, non-free goes in
> non-free. If a non-free software has a restrictive license it goes in
> tainted. A free software can not hav
On 6 July 2011 21:54, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath
>>
2011/7/7 andre999 :
> Anssi Hannula a écrit :
>>
>> On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir
wrote:
>
> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6,
Anssi Hannula a écrit :
On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
If we go back to the beginnin
On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath
wrote:
> If we go back to the beginning of
2011/7/6 Ahmad Samir :
> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath
wrote:
> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion wh
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 15:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>> I understand this as: software that might be free or open source =>
>> can be not free or open source. "might" expressed the possibility, not
>> the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate
On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath
>>> wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011, Thorsten van Lil wrote:
>
> The reason why we have tainted is, that there are patents, which restrain
> some user to use this software. So, it's a question of legality, which
> should get the higher priority. The differentiation if it's free or
> not-free is only a question
On 06/07/11 12:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may be illegal in som
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath
>> wrote:
>>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
>>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>>>
>>>
Am 06.07.2011 14:04, schrieb Ahmad Samir:
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into no
On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>>
>> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
>>
>> 2. Software which ma
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>
> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
>
> 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
> lic
On 6 July 2011 13:40, Florian Hubold wrote:
> Am 06.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
>>
>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>>
>> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
>>
>> 2. Software which may be il
Am 06.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Wolfgang Bornath:
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
licensing) will go in
On 6 July 2011 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>
> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
>
> 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
> licensing)
If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
1. All non-free goes into non-free
2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
licensing) will go into tainted.
That's all. Clear and simple.
The q
Am 17.03.2011 09:14, schrieb Samuel Verschelde:
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
but do
Quote: Samuel Verschelde wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 09:14
> Well, that would be a real solution if we really wanted to flag those
> packages
> both as tainted and as non-free, as some people give more importance to
> the
> fact that it is tainted and others to the fact that it is non-free.
A
Am Donnerstag 17 März 2011, 09:14:09 schrieb Samuel Verschelde:
> However, as the whole discussion seems to revolve around only one practical
> package, what would be even better would be convince and help upstream to
> solve the licensing issue (if that's feasible).
I just wanted to aks how many
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 21:30:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
> > Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
> >
> > > Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
> > > but do care about free licenses and d
andre999 a écrit :
Tux99 a écrit :
André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of
'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was
made a long time ago and is not up for debate here.
With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of
Tux99 a écrit :
André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of
'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was
made a long time ago and is not up for debate here.
With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of licenses
that source
Tux99 a écrit :
If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors
that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles.
Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into
tainted (where it belongs for dependencies) and marking tainted as being
for ALL tainte
André, I agree with you, we never should have had the separation of
'tainted' (and I argued that in the early days too) but that decision was
made a long time ago and is not up for debate here.
With regards to open source but not FOSS, there are many types of licenses
that source code can come wi
Tux99 a écrit :
I was looking at Mandriva non-free SRPM directory since Mageia doesn't have
much in non-free yet.
I haven't actually counted if the majority has source or not, so you might
be right, but we are digressing here because like I said in the first post
the question here in this thread
On 14.03.2011 15:30, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Quote: Anssi Hannula wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 00:35
>>
>> On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than
>>> 'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern
>>> than a
>>> n
On 13.03.2011 22:01, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
>>
>> During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
>> on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
>> that's both non-free (open source but not a F
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 21:30
> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
> >
> > Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
> >
> > > Because some people do not care about patents and using
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 20:34 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>
> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
>
> > Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
> > but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
> > them.
> >
> > I do. Stormi do
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 20:21
> Because some people do not care about patents and using tainted stuff,
> but do care about free licenses and do care about what it bring to
> them.
>
> I do. Stormi do ( or seems to do ). And I think that given we decided
> to
> split P
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 18:36 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>
> > If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors
> > that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles.
>
> Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into
> tainted (where it belongs for dependen
> If the mix is legit, then we just move to non-free, and warn mirrors
> that both non-free and tainted can cause troubles.
Why do you think that would be a better solution than putting it into
tainted (where it belongs for dependencies) and marking tainted as being
for ALL tainted packages (reg
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 16:13 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>
> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 11:28
>
> > > amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
> > > amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
> >
> > This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the
> > tarball,
> > as this downlo
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 11:28
> > amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
> > amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
>
> This one is interesting, because the whole code is free in the
> tarball,
> as this download the code from the internet at compile time. The
> resulting code is
On 15.03.2011 12:28, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 05:06 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>>
>> To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include
>> source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too
>> strict about their free/non-free subdivision)
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 05:06 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>
> To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include
> source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too
> strict about their free/non-free subdivision):
I was in Vienna in May 2004 when we first disc
To add some examples of 'tainted+non-free' packages (that also include
source code) I just came across in plf free (plf doesn't seem to be too
strict about their free/non-free subdivision):
amrnb-7.0.0.2-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
amrwb-7.0.0.3-2plf2011.0.src.rpm
faac-1.28-3plf2011.0.src.rpm
Where will
I was looking at Mandriva non-free SRPM directory since Mageia doesn't have
much in non-free yet.
I haven't actually counted if the majority has source or not, so you might
be right, but we are digressing here because like I said in the first post
the question here in this thread is about a packa
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 00:59 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>
> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:18
>
> > Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe
> > for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do
> > commercial business around it, and a
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:18
> Usually, people who do write non-free softwares on Linux ( like Adobe
> for flashplayer, Oracle for Java, etc ) are also those that do
> commercial business around it, and also pay the patent holder for
> usage,
> as seen when accepting
Le lundi 14 mars 2011 à 23:28 +0100, Tux99 a écrit :
>
> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49
>
> > Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
> > > Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
> > > > sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200
Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 21:49
> Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
> > Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
> > > sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
> > > > During the review with my mentor Anssi of
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 à 21:09 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
> Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
> > sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
> > > During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
> > > on, the question came up what
Quote: Anssi Hannula wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 00:35
>
> On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote:
> >
> > Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than
> > 'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern
> > than a
> > non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both cho
On 14.03.2011 01:01, Tux99 wrote:
>
>
> Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than
> 'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern than a
> non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both choices are far from ideal, I
> believe the only really clean solution wo
Personally I also think 'tainted' would be the better choice than
'non-free' since potential patent issues are a more serious concern than a
non-FOSS license, but tbh I think both choices are far from ideal, I
believe the only really clean solution would be to create a
'tainted+non-free' repo jus
Le dimanche 13 mars 2011 21:01:15, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
> sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
> > During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
> > on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
> > that's both non-free (open s
sön 2011-03-13 klockan 21:55 +0200 skrev Tux99:
>
> During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
> on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
> that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted
> (contains sw. that is
During the review with my mentor Anssi of one of the packages I'm working
on, the question came up what the appropriate repository for a package is
that's both non-free (open source but not a FOSS license) and tainted
(contains sw. that is covered by patents in some parts of the world).
Should a
85 matches
Mail list logo
