Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
> No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents.
> Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the
> owner is likely to enforce them on us.
> Does this policy also determine the "non-free" designation
A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
cannot be distributed at all.
> Don't forget non-DE as well.
> I never understood the reasoning for this approach. This divides free
> software according to local ordinances. I think the countries which
> impose them should be designated "non-free" instead.
I don't understand what you mean by "...the countries which impose them
should be designated non-free..."
> This raises another point which is unclear to me -- how much of the
> current "non-free" repository is like the old "non-US" in that the
> problem is really non-free local ordinances, rather than software
None that I know of. Non-free is about licensing.