blob: 33cf0346e18855bc4021202b686d7849b6975493 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Ahmad Samir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ahmadsamir3891@gmail.com">ahmadsamir3891@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 6 December 2010 09:29, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. <<a href="mailto:ewilcox@bex.net">ewilcox@bex.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> With regard to the naming of the repository dediocated to software tainted<br>
> with a patent, etc., How about "non-GPL"? I think that such a name should be<br>
> well understood by users of nearly any language, particularly if they are<br>
> familiar with the GPL.<br>
><br>
> My2cents<br>
> --<br>
> Ernest N. Wilcox Jr.<br>
> Registered Linux User 247790<br>
> ICQ 41060744<br>
><br>
<br>
Read the afro-mentioned thread again; most of those stuff are released<br>
under a GPL/GPL-like license (faad and faac packages for example, for<br>
playing back and encoding using the AAC audio codec, respectively),<br>
they're free open source software, but they infringe some patents.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Ahmad Samir<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>Why don't we call it universe or something like that? It's a neutral meaning where also packages without patents and such with patents can be stored in.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mit freundlichen Grüßen<br>
<br>Greetings<br><br>Daniel Kreuter<br><br><br><br>
|
