[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

I wrote:
> 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.

Marty writes:
> 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.

I wrote:

> 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
> licenses?

None that I know of.  Non-free is about licensing.
John Hasler

Reply to: