[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

Tue Oct 2 15:33:28 CEST 2012

2012/10/2 James Kerr <jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
+> On 02/10/2012 13:58, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
+>>
+>> 2012/10/2 James Kerr <jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
+>>>
+>>> On 02/10/2012 12:26, Frank Griffin wrote:
+>>>
+>>>> At least for my part, I always viewed tainted as being the equivalent of
+>>>> PLF,
+>>>
+>>>
+>>>
+>>> PLF had both free and non-free repo's.
+>>>
+>>> If you include both free and non-free in tainted, which is probably the
+>>> "least bad" solution, then there needs to be a way for FOSS enthusiasts
+>>> (who
+>>> choose to do so) to avoid the non-free packages - perhaps a statement in
+>>> the
+>>> package description would suffice.
+>>
+>>
+>> Well, are you saying that tainted includes free packages although they
+>> are subject to a patent?
+>
+>
+> Yes. Those are the only packages that are included at present in tainted.
+> The fact that a package includes software that may be encumbered by patent
+> claims does not make it non-free.
+
+Oops, sorry, I just realize that my question reads just the opposite
+of what I wanted to say (damn foreign langauge! :) To make my position
+clearer:
+
+IMHO a package is not free when it is subject to a patent. It may be
+not "non-free" per definition of "non-free software" but is not free
+nevertheless when it bears any restrictions because of patents or (in
+some countries) legal issues.
+
+It is a difference by strict definition but it makes no difference in
+practical terms and usage.
+
+-- 
+wobo
+