[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

Sun Dec 5 20:39:59 CET 2010

On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote:
+> 
+> 
+> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <andr55 at laposte.net
+> <mailto:andr55 at laposte.net>> wrote:
+> 
+>     Dale Huckeby a écrit :
+> 
+>         On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote:
+> 
+>             John a écrit :
+> 
+> 
+>                 On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:28:26 +0100
+>                 Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+> 
+>                     Op vrijdag 03 december 2010 10:45:05 schreef Ahmad
+>                     Samir:
+>                     [...]
+> 
+>                         The kernel uses the word "tainted" when it
+>                         detects the nvidia
+>                         proprietary module for example, (which
+>                         admittedly gave me a bit of
+>                         shock the first time I saw it :)).
+> 
+> 
+>                     Heh, i had the same reaction.
+> 
+>                         >From all the proposed names, I think "tainted"
+>                         is the best one, as the
+> 
+>                         packages in there are in a "grey" zone, i.e. not
+>                         totally illegal
+>                         everywhere, but illegal only in some places in
+>                         the world. And in
+>                         reality the existence of a patent doesn't
+>                         necessarily mean it's
+>                         enforceable in a court of law (the only way we'd
+>                         know for sure is if
+>                         someone actually does try to sue)... my 0.02€
+>                         worth :)
+> 
+> 
+>             Generally only potentially "illegal" in some countries.
+>             "Tainted" means contaminated, polluted. A lot stronger than
+>             potentially "illegal". (Really only actionable in a civil
+>             sense, not
+>             criminally illegal, as well.)
+>             A package could end up there due to an apparently credible
+>             rumour,
+>             later discredited. (Anyone remember SCO ?)
+> 
+> 
+>         I agree. Problematic comes closer to "potentially illegal", so I
+>         looked
+>         up some synonyms: ambiguous, debatable, dubious,
+>         iffy, suspect, speculative, precarious, suspicious, uncertain,
+>         unsettled, in addition to problematic itself. Personally
+>         I like iffy, which is both short and to the point, but I think
+>         several
+>         of these would do. WDYT?
+> 
+>         Dale Huckeby
+> 
+>     A much better set of choices.
+>     (Thanks for looking these up.  Good idea.)
+> 
+>     Let's remember that the question for these packages is not the
+>     quality of their functioning - but rather the advisability to use
+>     them, for other reasons, in some countries.
+>     So I think that it is better to avoid words that could question the
+>     QUALITY of the packages.
+> 
+>     Words in the list like
+>      ambiguous, debatable, problematic, and speculative
+>     avoid questioning the quality ... but could be too long or too formal.
+>     Or just not catchy enough ;)
+>     ("Iffy" might be ok - certainly catchy enough.)
+> 
+>     Additional words I found in Roget's thesaurus, along the same lines :
+> 
+>     Associated more with debatable :
+>     arguable, contestable, controvertible, disputable, questionable,
+> 
+>     Associated more with controversial :
+>     confutable, deniable, mistakable, moot
+> 
+>     Of these additional words, I think that "contestable", "disputable",
+>     and "controversial" are probably closest to the SENSE of the
+>     repositories.
+>     But maybe too formal ?
+> 
+>     Many of these words could be good choices.
+>     And maybe someone will come up with some more ?
+> 
+>     my 2 cents :)
+> 
+>     - André
+> 
+> 
+> What about: main, free, non-free?
+> In main is everything what belongs to the core, free contains only
+> packages which are under a free license and in non-free are those which
+> aren't clear if free or not (what you mentioned earlier in this discussion).
+> 
+> All three names are as clear as possible what's meant.
+
+The license of the packages is not in question (they are free), the
+patent (etc) situation is.
+
+-- 
+Anssi Hannula
+