[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

[Daniel Kreuter]

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula at iki.fi> wrote:

> 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
>

That's what i ment.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Greetings

Daniel Kreuter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20101205/9d87f2aa/attachment.html>