[Mageia-dev] rehashing the faac issue

[Wolfgang Bornath]

2012/10/2 James Kerr <jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
> On 02/10/2012 13:58, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>>
>> 2012/10/2 James Kerr <jim at jkerr82508.free-online.co.uk>:
>>>
>>> On 02/10/2012 12:26, Frank Griffin wrote:
>>>
>>>> At least for my part, I always viewed tainted as being the equivalent of
>>>> PLF,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PLF had both free and non-free repo's.
>>>
>>> If you include both free and non-free in tainted, which is probably the
>>> "least bad" solution, then there needs to be a way for FOSS enthusiasts
>>> (who
>>> choose to do so) to avoid the non-free packages - perhaps a statement in
>>> the
>>> package description would suffice.
>>
>>
>> Well, are you saying that tainted includes free packages although they
>> are subject to a patent?
>
>
> Yes. Those are the only packages that are included at present in tainted.
> The fact that a package includes software that may be encumbered by patent
> claims does not make it non-free.

Oops, sorry, I just realize that my question reads just the opposite
of what I wanted to say (damn foreign langauge! :) To make my position
clearer:

IMHO a package is not free when it is subject to a patent. It may be
not "non-free" per definition of "non-free software" but is not free
nevertheless when it bears any restrictions because of patents or (in
some countries) legal issues.

It is a difference by strict definition but it makes no difference in
practical terms and usage.

-- 
wobo