Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:09:23 +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> >
> > That's the usual mindless fluff patent, which applies to just about
> > everything, like the (now expired) patent on linked lists. We ignore
> > them unless we have reason not to, because otherwise we'd never get
> > anything done.
> >
> > Still not a patent on decoding.
>
> Quite a number of licensees disagree with your assessment of the
> situation, and I'm sure at least some of them have paid actual patent
> lawyers.
>
This raises an interesting question, which is probably a
well-understood thing around Debian, but which I am too green to be
familiar with:
Does Debian classify software based on the possibility that it might
infringe on a patent (out of fear of patent lawyers), or does it
classify software that has been declared by a court as infringing on a
patent (or, which the maintainers of the software acknowledge is
subject to a patent, and have the license to prove their legal
compliance)?
These are two very different approaches. The former might keep the
profile low, and out of the radar of energetic lawyers, but it also is
a form self-censorship. If Debian makes decisions based on what some
lawyer somewhere *might* say, it is probably ceding a lot of middle
ground, to the great joy of those who would like to own this
information space.
Does Debian have a policy or an established approach to this question?
-bluejack
--
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
Reply to: