Re: mpeg encoder patents

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

> We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
> responsibilities

I've not seen anyone argue that it is, nor request that we do such
enforcement.

> or that we expose ourself to any kind of liability by distributing
> code that may or may not be patent-encumbered.

Again, I've not seen that argument made by the Debian project for
“code that may or may not be patent-encumbered”. The patents of
concern [0], AIUI, are those that are *known to be* encumbering works,
because their holders actively enforce those patent restrictions
against implementors and/or redistributors.

Not only does this act expose the Debian project and, possibly, its
members to such liability, it openly encourages its recipients to
likewise expose themselves to such liability. That seems to be quite
contrary to our users's interests.


[0] No, I don't have the specific patents to hand; I'm correcting what
    I see as a false argument, not arguing about specific patents.

-- 
 \        “Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ‘I know, |
  `\       I'll use regular expressions’. Now they have two problems.” |
_o__)                           —Jamie Zawinski, in alt.religion.emacs |
Ben Finney