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

Bug#46522: weekly policy summary

> > > Amend non-free definition (#46522)
> > >   * Stalled.
> > >   * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Marco d'Itri, Joseph Carter
> > >     and Joel Klecker.
> > >   * Change definition of non-free to "contains packages which are not
> > >     compliant with the DFSG". Currently, non-free includes packages
> > >     with patent problems or other legal issues.

On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:47:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If we move all this stuff into main, we'll be widely distributing stuff
> that we know is covered by patent restrictions in areas where we're
> well aware we're distributing it, and we'll be specifically telling
> people that it's freely usable and distributable.


This does bring up some of the weaknesses of non-us (in some cases we'll
want it to be non-de as well).

> This seems like it'd be enough for someone feeling nasty to sue SPI for
> contributory infringement of some patent or other.

I think contributory infringement is a copyright issue, not a patent issue.

In the U.S., patents are guilty till proven innocent, but non-free
doesn't protect us from that.


Reply to: