On 04/16/12 01:01, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
On 04/11/2012 09:37 PM, Filipus Klutiero
> 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.
> * 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
> specific IP issues.
> * To consider merging 2. with the 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
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
remember there were suggestions during the discussion to not
because you may be getting knowledge that would stop you from
based on those ideas, even if you could bring up the same
conclusion by yourself.
Is it not "OK" to infringe a patent, even if you don't know about
Anyway, back at point 5, making it exclusively through email@example.com 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
privilege. Something that is not true even if you send your
debian-private instead of a public list like this.
Yes, this is explained in point 3 of http://www.debian.org/legal/patent.en.html
The legal battles are like wars, you can't
give your strategy to your opponent
and that's what point 5 tries to address.
That's not how I see legal "battles". Trials are a civilized way
to resolve disputes. There is no need for strategy.
The kind of feedback I would like to get on point 5 is:
- New arguments for it
- People's opinions on whether they support or reject adopting
Who said software patents are allowed in the first place?