[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

[Anssi Hannula]

On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <andr55 at laposte.net
> <mailto:andr55 at 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