On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hann...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 05.12.2010 19:36, Daniel Kreuter wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM, andre999 <and...@laposte.net > > <mailto: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. > > 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