Re: [dev] Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package?
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:54AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > I thought that in the US at least, source code had been held to be speech
> > (due to the necessity for precise communication of the ideas expressed
> > therein) during one of the crypto cases.
> > There's nothing about patent law that enables it to override the
> > constitution, is there?
> Leaving the question... is 'allowing it to be used' significant?
> I believe RedHat has altered their distribution (8.0?) to no longer
> include any .mp3 encoding/decoding software for this very reason. They
> are not willing to risk a law suit, and they are not willing to force
> users to license their 'standard' distribution for a fee.
> As with most scenarios related to law... do you have a lawyer who can
> make your case for you, or are you simply willing to risk it for
> I'm not being difficult - just some food for thought.
Sorry, how does this tie into the discussion? The already are patches that
make sure that the debian packaged OOo binary does not include any
patented functionality. So it is already equvalent to the situation of
RH8. The OOo / LZW situation is more closer to a source tarball including
source for a *optionaly* built component that did MP3. And the question is
whetever you could include such tarball as is or would have to go off and
ravage it to be a different tarball with the soucres and option removed.
> firstname.lastname@example.orgemail@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org __________________________
> . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
> |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
> | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
> and in the darkness bind them...
There are voices in the street,
And the sound of running feet,
And they whisper the word --