Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
John Hasler wrote:
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.
If their laws have nothing to do with Debian, then why shouldn't US laws
have nothing to do with Debian? (It seems like a double standard to me.)
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?
How about, because the validity of the laws in question seems to be a better
criteron than race or nationality?
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)?
Why not? How does Marillat get away with it? I use Marillat packages every
day. Am I doing something illegal? Should I expect a knock on the door?
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.
You have still not answered my basic question about why a broken or anti-freedom
local ordinance should dictate Debian policy.
Reply to: