On 04/11/2012 09:37 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > Hi, > in February, Stefano Zacchiroli added a document titled "Debian Position on [...] > 5. A request/demand that people concerned with specific patent issues do not > share their concerns, except with the contact point mentioned in 3. > > > 1. is fairly obvious. 2. is welcome, although I suppose this is just > officializing a stance we were already taking. 3. can be considered a specific > case of our pretty obvious desire to have our bugs reported. 4. is excellent > news. 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. > > Leaving the validity of 5. aside, I find that this document is very confusing. > It's not just a policy, and it's talking to several groups. I suggest: > > * To separe 1. , 3. and 4. from the rest. These could be grouped in a document > on intellectual property explaining that Debian takes into account both > copyright and patents and offering contact points for reporting/discussing > specific IP issues. > * To consider merging 2. with the social contract: > http://www.debian.org/social_contract > The free software guidelines could be modified to specify that our freedom > requirements apply not only to copyright licenses, but also to patent licenses. > A modification of a Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority, but I don't > think this would be hard to reach. > > > Thanks to MJ Ray for his reply when I asked about this document's origins. Hi Filipus, I remember there was a discussion about this but I don't remember in which list happened, maybe was private. The point 5 is because when comes to patent stuff you mess up with legal things that, ironically, contradict the natural behavior of people. If you don't know anything about the patent then is OK to brake it in some way, in fact, I remember there were suggestions during the discussion to not read patents, because you may be getting knowledge that would stop you from writing software based on those ideas, even if you could bring up the same conclusion by yourself. Anyway, back at point 5, making it exclusively through patents@debian.org makes it confidential even at the level than in a courtroom it can't be asked to disclose the content of that discussion because of the attorney-client privilege. Something that is not true even if you send your concern to debian-private instead of a public list like this. The legal battles are like wars, you can't give your strategy to your opponent and that's what point 5 tries to address. Kind Regards. -- Jose Luis Rivas - GPG: 0x7C4DF50D / 0xCACAB118 The Debian Project Developer -- http://ghostbar.ath.cx Barquisimeto, Venezuela
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature