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

Re: mpeg encoder patents, Was: Bug#501190: ITP: moonlight

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 09:15:16PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:30:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >         So I think we need to modify the proposal, not the policy.
> We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
> responsibilities or that we expose ourself to any kind of liability
> by distributing code that may or may not be patent-encumbered.

It's not about ourselves, we are a non-profit and don't have deep pockets
that patent trolls would want to go after.  It's about the public we're
supposedly serving.

Our users weight the quality of our product against the risk of liability
that it carries.  I think it's obvious we need some balance.  In some cases
(e.g. Linux, Glibc or X11) the risk is low and quality strongly depends on
them; in others (e.g. MPEG encoders) the risk is high and our users don't
really miss anything if we don't ship it.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: