1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anssi.hannula@iki.fi">anssi.hannula@iki.fi</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <<a href="mailto:andr55@laposte.net">andr55@laposte.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:andr55@laposte.net">andr55@laposte.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dale Huckeby a écrit :<br>
><br>
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, andre999 wrote:<br>
><br>
> John a écrit :<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:28:26 +0100<br>
> Maarten Vanraes wrote:<br>
><br>
> Op vrijdag 03 december 2010 10:45:05 schreef Ahmad<br>
> Samir:<br>
> [...]<br>
><br>
> The kernel uses the word "tainted" when it<br>
> detects the nvidia<br>
> proprietary module for example, (which<br>
> admittedly gave me a bit of<br>
> shock the first time I saw it :)).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Heh, i had the same reaction.<br>
><br>
> >From all the proposed names, I think "tainted"<br>
> is the best one, as the<br>
><br>
> packages in there are in a "grey" zone, i.e. not<br>
> totally illegal<br>
> everywhere, but illegal only in some places in<br>
> the world. And in<br>
> reality the existence of a patent doesn't<br>
> necessarily mean it's<br>
> enforceable in a court of law (the only way we'd<br>
> know for sure is if<br>
> someone actually does try to sue)... my 0.02€<br>
> worth :)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Generally only potentially "illegal" in some countries.<br>
> "Tainted" means contaminated, polluted. A lot stronger than<br>
> potentially "illegal". (Really only actionable in a civil<br>
> sense, not<br>
> criminally illegal, as well.)<br>
> A package could end up there due to an apparently credible<br>
> rumour,<br>
> later discredited. (Anyone remember SCO ?)<br>
><br>
><br>
> I agree. Problematic comes closer to "potentially illegal", so I<br>
> looked<br>
> up some synonyms: ambiguous, debatable, dubious,<br>
> iffy, suspect, speculative, precarious, suspicious, uncertain,<br>
> unsettled, in addition to problematic itself. Personally<br>
> I like iffy, which is both short and to the point, but I think<br>
> several<br>
> of these would do. WDYT?<br>
><br>
> Dale Huckeby<br>
><br>
> A much better set of choices.<br>
> (Thanks for looking these up. Good idea.)<br>
><br>
> Let's remember that the question for these packages is not the<br>
> quality of their functioning - but rather the advisability to use<br>
> them, for other reasons, in some countries.<br>
> So I think that it is better to avoid words that could question the<br>
> QUALITY of the packages.<br>
><br>
> Words in the list like<br>
> ambiguous, debatable, problematic, and speculative<br>
> avoid questioning the quality ... but could be too long or too formal.<br>
> Or just not catchy enough ;)<br>
> ("Iffy" might be ok - certainly catchy enough.)<br>
><br>
> Additional words I found in Roget's thesaurus, along the same lines :<br>
><br>
> Associated more with debatable :<br>
> arguable, contestable, controvertible, disputable, questionable,<br>
><br>
> Associated more with controversial :<br>
> confutable, deniable, mistakable, moot<br>
><br>
> Of these additional words, I think that "contestable", "disputable",<br>
> and "controversial" are probably closest to the SENSE of the<br>
> repositories.<br>
> But maybe too formal ?<br>
><br>
> Many of these words could be good choices.<br>
> And maybe someone will come up with some more ?<br>
><br>
> my 2 cents :)<br>
><br>
> - André<br>
><br>
><br>
> What about: main, free, non-free?<br>
> In main is everything what belongs to the core, free contains only<br>
> packages which are under a free license and in non-free are those which<br>
> aren't clear if free or not (what you mentioned earlier in this discussion).<br>
><br>
> All three names are as clear as possible what's meant.<br>
<br>
The license of the packages is not in question (they are free), the<br>
patent (etc) situation is.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Anssi Hannula<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>That's what i ment.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mit freundlichen Grüßen<br><br>Greetings<br><br>Daniel Kreuter<br><br><br><br>
|
