Re: mpeg encoder patents, Was: Bug#501190: ITP: moonlight
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> - introduce a new section 'patented'
> - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
> - source packages in 'main' may produce binaries in 'patented'
> - binary packages in 'main' must not depend on packages in 'patented'
> - source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
> - source and binary packages in 'patented' may depend on package on
> both 'main' and 'patented'
> - source packages in 'patented' must not produce binaries in 'main'
> - packages in 'contrib' and 'non-free' may additionally depend on packages
> in 'patented'
What about packages which need non-free software packages to work
(contrib) and infringe actively enforced patents? This would mean a
contrib-patented component. What about patents which are enforced only
in some countries? What about patents only applicable in some
countries (e.g. a patent in France)?
Perhaps instead of trying to come with a hierarchical classification,
we should simply expose what we know about patents and any other
distribution issue in a machine readable way.
What a bout a debian/distribution or debian/copyright2 file which would
expose patents information? e.g.:
Patent numbers: 1234, 5678
Risk of prosecution[company, gvt, non-profit]: yes
Risk of prosecution[user]: no