On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > 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 > challanged." > 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 ?). Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the purview of the ftp team to decide. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature