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

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?

Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operation.

> > stated they won't ask for fees on MP3 decoders.
>   http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
> talks about 0.75 Dollar for a decoder.

I can't find the reference, but IIRC it was stated later that they don't
want to apply this to free (as in beer) software.

> > > Documentation is "software"?
> > 
> > Sure.
> Every book in my book shelf is software?

If you digitalize it, yes.

> That doesn't match how people outside of Debian use the word "software".

When we tried to define what is "software", the only acceptable
definitions we found were things like "every kind of numeric stuff" or
"everything that can be included in Debian". You can try to come up with
your own, you'll see it's not that easy.

> > GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
> Assuming you have an online connection and a friend told you how to 
> manually edit your /etc/apt/sources.list for non-free.
> But where's the documentation if you don't have an online connection but 
> only the dozen binary CDs of Debian?

Without the GFDL documentation, you'll have the right to lock the room
in which you put the CDs. The GFDL forbids that, because you'd be "using
technical measures to obstruct further copying" of the documentations.
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: