[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two

[Anssi Hannula]

On 05.12.2010 21:47, Daniel Kreuter wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula at iki.fi
> <mailto: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>
>     > <mailto: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.

I don't understand. So, where would you put e.g. patent-encumbered
packages of free software, then? If to "free", that runs counter to the
desire to having them in a separate repository. If to "nonfree", that
would simply be wrong as they are not nonfree.

-- 
Anssi Hannula