[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
anssi.hannula at iki.fi
Sun Dec 5 20:39:59 CET 2010
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
> 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
> later discredited. (Anyone remember SCO ?)
> I agree. Problematic comes closer to "potentially illegal", so I
> 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
> 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
> 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.
More information about the Mageia-dev