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

Re: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems

Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he
> > will fix the bug or not.
> The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- either
> it gets fixed, or the package gets removed.

Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below).

> > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is
> > treated.
> That bug shows people expressing the opinions that
> - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent before
> we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced against us - we
> consider the existence of prior art as sufficient reason to ignore the
> patent, since legally, the patent is invalid
> both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how either
> relates to libpano12, AFAICT?

http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there is 
clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous discution 
on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that :
"The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long
as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been

It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let this 
software in Debian, even if the patent has not been challenged ?).

> >  (please have a look at the latest
> > debate on debian-legal,
> Reference, please?


> > We can't know what will be the risk for Debian. Please take into account
> > the fact that there is a sourceforge project and that developers haven't
> > got any problems.
> Debian has consistently classified actively-enforced patents as an
> unacceptable risk.  Is there some reason to think this patent is not really
> being actively enforced, or is an invalid patent?

- it seems that there is prior art
- the sourceforge project exists since 30/11/2003 and the developers haven't 
got any problems

Florent Bayle

Attachment: pgpszYBWGpmm1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: