Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> 5. A request/demand that people concerned with specific patent issues
> do not share their concerns, except with the contact point mentioned
> in 3.
>
> [...] 5. is, however, anti-transparency, and IMO against
> our ethics. Such a position statement cannot be made prior to
> discussion. Since it looks like this wasn't discussed yet, I am hereby
> lauching a public discussion on 5. This is not a poll, but I'd like to
> see the opinions of others on it. and whether it is unanimous or not.
As I wrote in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00129.html
I think it was discussed, so the above claim is a bit off, but
a public discussion might be enlightening anyway.
Also, can the DPL really not just issue this position statement
as a "decision for whom noone else has responsibility"? I'm
pretty sure the DPL procedure (such as it is) was followed: that
zack solicited views and made a decision he felt to be consistent
with the consensus.
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with point 5, but I think I'm living in
a country where legislation prohibits software patents and there isn't
a specific increase in punishment if you might have read emails form a
third party about a possible patent infringement (but I could be
wrong). I think the request to focus patent topics on one contact
point is to protect less fortunate developers: there are some, aren't
there? In the USA with its crazy anti-free-enterprise software patent
madness?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: