[Mageia-dev] Repository question: where do we put non-free+tainted RPMs?

[Anssi Hannula]

On 06.07.2011 16:04, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 6 July 2011 14:27, Romain d'Alverny <rdalverny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:04, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 July 2011 13:58, Romain d'Alverny <rdalverny at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:10, Wolfgang Bornath <molch.b at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If we go back to the beginning of the discussion where to put such
>>>>> packages which were in PLF we made a clear difference:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. All non-free goes into non-free
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Software which may be illegal in some countries (mostly because of
>>>>> licensing) will go into tainted.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all. Clear and simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question about GPL or other free licenses is not touched by
>>>>> tainted. So, everything which does not have to go to tainted will go
>>>>> to free (core) or non-free, depending on it's status.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=licensing_policy#acceptable_licenses
>>>> says:
>>>>
>>>> "The tainted section accepts software under a license that is might be
>>>> free or open source and which cannot be redistributed publicly in
>>>> certain areas in the world, or due to patents issues."
>>>>
>>>> Reformulating it in an other, more explicit way maybe:
>>>>  - "core" hosts 100% free software that can be redistributed anywhere
>>>> (or almost, the world is a bit more complicated than that)
>>>>  - "nonfree" hosts non-free software that can be redistributed anywhere (same)
>>>>  - "tainted" hosts all the rest, be it free software or not.
>>>
>>> Third point is wrong, "a license that is might be free or open
>>> source", which, I think, means only software with an open source
>>> software License.
>>
>> I understand this as: software that might be free or open source =>
>> can be not free or open source. "might" expressed the possibility, not
>> the requirement. IOW, tainted does not discriminate free and non free
>> software.
> 
> It does differentiate; given that Anssi is the one who worked on the
> tainted policy the most, and he doesn't think faac should be in
> tainted, is enough to say that the wording in the wiki needs to
> express our stance on the issue in a clearer way...

I don't remember saying that. Any consistent solution is acceptable to
me (including put-in-nonfree, put-in-tainted, put-in-nowhere).

There was opposition (from e.g. misc) to having nonfree stuff in
tainted, though.

-- 
Anssi Hannula