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

Re: patents and non-free

jcdubacq@info.unicaen.fr <jcdubacq@info.unicaen.fr>:

> > Nothing in the DFSG seems to refer to patents, so I don't see how a
> > patent can make a program non-free in the DFSG sense. Also, the USA
> > isn't the only country in the world to have software patents
> > (there's also Japan), so non-us doesn't seem very useful for dealing
> > with patents.
> non-us is not anywhere outside us. It is precisely in Netherland.

And does that protect Debian from accusations of infringing US and
Japanese patents if it turns out that US and Japanese people have
downloaded the programs?

> > I believe it is unclear whether it may be a patent infringement to
> > distribute a program together with a warning that use of the program
> > might be an infringement. It might be all right to distribute source
> > but not binaries, but nobody seems to know.
> To be DFSG, a program must be free of use.

Does that mean a C compiler cannot be DFSG because a C compiler can be
used to infringe any software patent?

Would GPG be non-DFSG-free if it were illegal to use encryption in
North Korea?

In general, is it reasonable for Debian to investigate how all
existing laws and patents in every country might affect all possible
uses of each program in the archive?

I would prefer to let the DFSG just refer to licences.


Reply to: