Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
I wrote:
> A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us
> cannot be distributed at all.
Marty writes:
> That sounds like a pretty subjective standard.
Yes.
> Who decides what's "likely?" Who is "us"?
Debian.
> Does "us" include billions of Chinese and Indians?
US patents have nothing to do with them. They have their own laws and will
have to make their own decisions.
> Furthermore, does this policy include patents from countries which admit
> that they have a broken patent system?*
What's that got to do with anything?
> For example, instead of a non-US repository, you could have a US
> repository excluding all free software which is designated as illegal in
> the US, or otherwise encumbered by freedom-infringing US laws.
Non-US resulted from the bizarre (and now defunct) US munitions export
regulation that regulated the export (but not the use or import) of strong
encryption.
> Non-free is about licensing.
> I thought it also included patent issues, such as the well-know cases
> involving the GIF and LZW patents.
If it's subject to a patent that is likely to be enforced on us we cannot
distribute it at all, so how could it be in non-free (BTW that patent has
expired)?
> Now I'm (still?) confused.
To add to your confusion, the US is not the only country with software
patents and there are important countries with other laws that can be
equally awkward.
--
John Hasler
Reply to: