[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#635994: marked as done (foo2zjs makes use of embedded, patented libraries)

Your message dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:51:52 -0700
with message-id <20110730015152.GA30850@virgil.dodds.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#635994: foo2zjs makes use of embedded, patented libraries
has caused the Debian Bug report #635994,
regarding foo2zjs makes use of embedded, patented libraries
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
635994: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=635994
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: foo2zjs
Version: foo2zjs
Severity: serious
Tags: upstream
Justification: violates DFSG, violates should constraint in policy § 4.13

I was told by an anonymous user in #debian on OFTC (logs upon request available),
that the foo2zjs package is making use of patentended code, embedded into its 
source. foo2zjs uses the jbigkit library [1] which in turn consists of paten-
ted code [2].

Examples can be found in the following files:

* jbig_ar.c  
* jbig_ar.h
* jbig.c
* jbig.h   

all those files cleary state their origin. In addition, the jbigkit library was 
intented to be packaged for Debian [3] but was never introduced to Debian (as 
far as I can tell) because of this reason. Considering this unclear code distri-
butability and the Debian patent FAQ [4], I hereby request for comments about 
this issue and possible solutions.

Please note the original reporters intention was to include, possibly even package 
jbigkit for Debian. So his point of view was to either allow jbigkit to be packaged
or foo2zjs to be removed (or cleaned of patented bits) for consistency. This seemed 
feasible to me. I personally am not particularly interested in either package, but 
would like to have this problem addressed.  

[1] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/jbigkit/
[2] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/jbigkit/patents/
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=466427 
[4] http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 03:14:58AM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Package: foo2zjs
> Version: foo2zjs
> Severity: serious
> Tags: upstream
> Justification: violates DFSG, violates should constraint in policy § 4.13

> I was told by an anonymous user in #debian on OFTC (logs upon request
> available), that the foo2zjs package is making use of patentended code,
> embedded into its source.  foo2zjs uses the jbigkit library [1] which in
> turn consists of patented code [2].

I am closing this bug with extreme prejudice.

As the patent FAQ you've cited explains, *reading patents increases your
liability*.  Short of a claim from the patent holder that we are
distributing something that infringes their patents, the preferred course
of action is to *not look at these patents at all*.

If and when a patent holder indicates that there is a problem, we should
take action to remove the infringing software to protect our downstream
users.  But until then, we should not attempt to make any determination of
whether the software in question infringes a valid software patent.

According to the summary page, there is one remaining patent which may be
infringed by jbigkit.  This patent expires less than a year from now in the
US, has already expired elsewhere, and no attempt has been made to enforce
patent rights against Debian or its users.

So there is no serious bug here.

> all those files cleary state their origin. In addition, the jbigkit
> library was intented to be packaged for Debian [3] but was never
> introduced to Debian (as far as I can tell) because of this reason. 

The comment in the bug states:

> packaging would be straightforward, since there is just a static
> library. However I guess the patent issues will keep us from shipping
> it in Debian.

That is a non-sequitur.  Debian does not have a policy of refusing to
include software which may be covered by software patents.  There is no
explanation given in the bug log for why the software was not packaged; it
was probably not packaged because RFPs are not a good mechanism for getting
software into Debian and no one was interested in maintaining a package for
this software.

I see nothing to indicate that jbigkit would (or should) be rejected if
someone chose to package it separately.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: