Re: New idea for finessing patent issues (was: lame (again!))
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
>Barak, I agree with your purpose, and completely disagree with your
>approach.
>
>Beyond some problems with practical matters (I think patent law varies
>way too widely to provide accurate information without undue burden on
>the maintainers), it has two fundamental flaws:
>
>1. It puts a burden on our users that I believe violates our social
>contract (in spirit, if not in letter). I think that we've long implied
>that software in main is "safe to use", and the users trust that we've
>interpeted the licenses such that they can use and modify the software
>without fear of reprisal. The click-through-license you've proposed
>violates that.
However, I really see no reason why Barak's "software patents are nasty"
dialog shouldn't be a strong advisory for patented stuff in non-free...
Given that Debian really can't demand much about something that isn't
officially a part of it.
>2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
>thus does not "stay true to our ideals".
It can be worded that Debian disagrees strongly with the idea of patented
software, but pragmatically is providing it because of a percieved
utility. Sort of like RMS's "non-free" question in base, except a bit
longer and more preachy :)
>-or-
>
>2b. It's an obviously cynical dodge of liability, and (to me, at least) is
>an even worse violation of our ideals.
>
>It's simply not worth it.
>
>Steve
>
>[1] I'm not sure I'd argue that all software (actually algorithm)
>patents are inherently invalid[2], just that the US Patent Office isn't
>competent to judge "unobvious" or "prior-art".
>
>[2] Unlike "business-process" patents, which are completely bogus.
>
>
>
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: