"Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org> writes: > >> Viral <viral@debian.org> writes: > > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian > > archives, not even non-US. > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package > > IIRC your questions are addressed there. A few questions that are not covered in the linked discussion, nor in the postings to debian-legal that I digged up. What is (or can be) prevented by a patent? - Spreading information about an algorithm? - Writing code that implements an algorithm? - Distributing/publishing same code? - Using the code? Is there a difference between distributing source vs. binaries as regards patents? In this specific case, Fraunhofer IIS seems to focus on binaries, for some reason. (BladeENC is still distributed in source form, but no longer pre-compiled, see <URL:http://bladeenc.mp3.no/skeleton/news.html>) In how far is the mp3 patent different than the IDEA patent (or the RSA patent a until a few months ago)? We distributed and still distribute source/binaries implementing both of these technologies. Debian does not seem to care about /all/ patents (we probably couldn't distribute any software otherwise), only those that are actively enforced. But lame has been distributed (first as a patch, then as complete source) for considerable time, without major legal hassles, AFAIK. sourceforge (not exactly an off-shore, small-fish site) provided the lame CVS since 1999. Couldn't that be seen as evidence that distributing lame (at least in source form) is "ok". Another minor point is that they claim to cover mp3 *de*coding in their patents as well. If Thomson gets its way, you'd have to pay a fee for every decoder, only those distributed free-of-charge over the net are exempted (<URL:http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html>) Unless we dismiss this claim as bogus, freeamp, mpg321, and friends must go to non-free at least. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature