On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <and...@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. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Greetings Daniel Kreuter