Re: [PROPOSAL] Patented software == non-free?

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

Joseph Carter wrote:
> I propose the above be removed right away.  Software covered by patents
> is in no way non-free.  Just because where _I_ live has stupid laws which
> allow things like the lzw algorithm to be patented (seperately and by two
> seperate companies no less) doesn't mean people in the rest of the world
> can't use things such as giflib.
> 
> The same holds true for things like RSA and IDEA.
> 
> 
> I therefore propose the following change be made to policy:
> 
> 2.1.4. The non-free section
> ---------------------------
> 
>       `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG
>       or which are encumbered by legal issues which render the software's
>       distribution problematic.

Unfortunatly this change really makes no difference. Being patented _is_
being "encumbered by legal issues". You've just removed an example of a
general case, anyone reading the above proposed text can conclude that it
applies to patents.

It's a good idea, but you need to fig your language to say what you meant.
Perhaps:

  2.1.4. The non-free section
  ---------------------------
         Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG.

Or perhaps adding to that "or which are encumbered by legal issues which
render the software's distribution problematic, but are not patents."

-- 
see shy jo