Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit : [...] > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he > > will fix the bug or not. > > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- either > it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below). [...] > > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is > > treated. > > That bug shows people expressing the opinions that > > - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent before > we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced against us - we > consider the existence of prior art as sufficient reason to ignore the > patent, since legally, the patent is invalid > > both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how either > relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been challanged." It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let this software in Debian, even if the patent has not been challenged ?). [...] > > (please have a look at the latest > > debate on debian-legal, > > Reference, please? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00274.html [...] > > We can't know what will be the risk for Debian. Please take into account > > the fact that there is a sourceforge project and that developers haven't > > got any problems. > > Debian has consistently classified actively-enforced patents as an > unacceptable risk. Is there some reason to think this patent is not really > being actively enforced, or is an invalid patent? - it seems that there is prior art - the sourceforge project exists since 30/11/2003 and the developers haven't got any problems -- Florent Bayle
Attachment:
pgpGHQ0QH1oCy.pgp
Description: PGP signature