This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: > Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes: > > > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> Le samedi 29 avril 2006 à 23:37 +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell a > >> écrit : > >> > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > >> > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced > >> > Video Coding standards. > >> > >> I have already stated this: Debian shouldn't have anything to do > >> with regard to patents. We should entirely ignore them unless > >> directly threatened, and such issues that depend so much on the > >> country should be up to the end-user to deal with. > > > > Like it or not, we can't completely ignore them in Debian. Each mirror > > operator needs to make their own decisions about their liability in > > their own country, but Debian itself needs to be careful about > > distributing works which have patents in the United States[1] where > > the patent holders are well known and have been inolved in patent > > litigation against individuals using their patents. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it use, not distribution, that > requires a patent license? As I understand it, yes, with the caveat that patents laws are not uniform, of course. But given that this is the general case, it seems like a non-issue as far as Debian is concerned. We have historically ignored them for exactly this reason. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature