On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Claire Robinson wrote: > On 20/06/12 13:05, Oliver Burger wrote: >> Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w: >>> Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a >>> GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. >> The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's >> partly nonfree. >> Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted. >> Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree. >> But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and >> wikipedia wrong. >> So it's a no-go. >> >> Oliver >> > > I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it > that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? > > I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering > to a minority and ignoring a majority?
So you are saying that someone who wants to have free and nonfree software in separate repositories is an open source purist and a minority, but you don't want to add fuel to the fire ?