Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
John Hasler wrote:
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.
That sounds like a pretty subjective standard. Who decides what's "likely?"
Who is "us"? Does "us" include billions of Chinese and Indians?
Furthermore, does this policy include patents from countries which admit
that they have a broken patent system?* (The FAT patent would probably be
a good example here.)
On a more philosophical note, should important concepts like freedom be
tied to such arbitrary standards, however pragmatic they may be?
*see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/10/1717224&tid=155&tid=136&tid=103&tid=106&tid=218
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..."
I mean that something is clearly non-free, and it's not always the software
license. The issue is what is the best way make this distinction?
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.
This would serve the same purpose and avoid inconveniencing non-US users.
(Not that I am proposing this, but just giving an example of a more logical
alternative to the non-US repository.)
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.
I thought it also included patent issues, such as the well-know cases
involving the GIF and LZW patents. Now I'm (still?) confused. :-(
Reply to: