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 --- .../20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment-0001.html | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++ .../attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment.html | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++ .../20101205/da2938d0/attachment-0001.html | 82 +++++++++++++++ .../attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment.html | 82 +++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 394 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment-0001.html create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment.html create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment-0001.html create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment-0001.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment-0001.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c396c36bc --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment-0001.html @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@iki.fi> wrote:
+On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote:
+>
+>
+> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <andr55@laposte.net
+> <mailto:andr55@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.

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Greetings

Daniel Kreuter



diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c396c36bc --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment.html @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula@iki.fi> wrote:
+On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote:
+>
+>
+> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <andr55@laposte.net
+> <mailto:andr55@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.

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Greetings

Daniel Kreuter



diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment-0001.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment-0001.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..725405689 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment-0001.html @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <andr55@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.

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Greetings

Daniel Kreuter



diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..725405689 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/da2938d0/attachment.html @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <andr55@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.

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Greetings

Daniel Kreuter



-- cgit v1.2.1