[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

Sun Dec 5 21:33:04 CET 2010

On 05.12.2010 21:47, Daniel Kreuter wrote:
+> 
+> 
+> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula at iki.fi
+> <mailto:anssi.hannula at iki.fi>> wrote:
+> 
+>     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>
+>     > <mailto: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
+> 
+> 
+> That's what i ment.
+
+I don't understand. So, where would you put e.g. patent-encumbered
+packages of free software, then? If to "free", that runs counter to the
+desire to having them in a separate repository. If to "nonfree", that
+would simply be wrong as they are not nonfree.
+
+-- 
+Anssi Hannula
+