From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110315/003301.html | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110315/003301.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110315/003301.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110315/003301.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110315/003301.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9e96317bc --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110315/003301.html @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs? + + + + + + + + + +

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

+ Tux99 + tux99-mga at uridium.org +
+ Tue Mar 15 00:59:04 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
+
+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 the license on installation.
+
+I have the impression there is a misunderstanding, the sw you are talking
+about is a special case, and in the case of Adobe it's actually not open
+source software at all, I was talking about non-commercial open source
+software that has a FOSS incompatible license (and is 'tainted', i.e. with
+patent issues).
+As far as I can see most of the stuff in 'non-free' is like this, open
+source but with a FOSS incompatible license, not binary-only.
+
+-- 
+Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/
+
+ + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1