Re: New idea for finessing patent issues (was: lame (again!))
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:28:32AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> The idea itself actually click-though notification. The "click
> through" was meant to imply that we could count on this being a valid
> information distribution mechanism just as much as many software
> vendors count on their click though licenses. Ie, we could pretty
> bloody well count on them being read and understood, in the same legal
> fiction sense that vendors count on click through licenses being read
> and understood.
Ah, but I think it's in the interests of free software to challenge
the validity of such click-through licenses. If we use them ourselves,
we implicitly support them.
> STATUS QUO: do not distribute package
> ALTERNATIVE: distribute normally, but mention relevant patents
What you described was hardly "mention". You proposed a system that
requires the system administrator to affirm that the patent does not
apply to his or her situation. The option of "this patent is bogus
and I will ignore it" was lacking.
I could support this proposal if it simply pops up a screen that says
"These corporations claim to hold patents on [part of] this package's
functionality. [list of patent numbers, countries, expiration dates,
short descriptions, links to more information]".
Then the user is informed of a potential problem, and can make up his
or her own mind and take any measures necessary. At the same time,
Debian has fulfilled its potential obligation to inform the user, yet
does not take a stance about the validity of the patent.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: