[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?

Wed Jul 6 21:54:51 CEST 2011

On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
+> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny <rdalverny at gmail.com> wrote:
+>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
+>>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny <rdalverny at gmail.com> wrote:
+>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath <molch.b at googlemail.com> 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) will go into tainted.
+>>>>>
+>>>>> That's all. Clear and simple.
+>>>>>
+>>>>> The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by
+>>>>> tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go
+>>>>> to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status.
+>>>>
+>>>> Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses
+>>>> says:
+>>>>
+>>>> "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be
+>>>> free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in
+>>>> certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues."
+>>>>
+>>>> Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe:
+>>>>  - "core" hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere
+>>>> (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that)
+>>>>  - "nonfree" hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same)
+>>>>  - "tainted" hosts all the rest, be it free software or not.
+>>>
+>>> Third point is wrong, "a license that is might be free or open
+>>> source", which, I think, means only software with an open source
+>>> software License.
+>>
+>> 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 free and non free
+>> software.
+> 
+> It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the
+> tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in
+> tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to
+> express our stance on the issue in a clearer way...
+
+I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to
+me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere).
+
+There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in
+tainted, though.
+
+-- 
+Anssi Hannula
+