[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout, round two
anssi.hannula at iki.fi
Sun Dec 5 21:33:04 CET 2010
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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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",
> > 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
> > aren't clear if free or not (what you mentioned earlier in this
> > 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.
More information about the Mageia-dev