Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 19:48 -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com escreveu:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:27:54PM -0500, Marty wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > >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.)
>
> Could it be that -- gasp -- Debian might be US-based? I always thought of
> it as international, possibly European.
Debian is international, but like any other person juridic or physic it
can be sued for infringe a law in the country where it infringes this
law.
For example : the US had a law against exporting cryptography from the
US, there fore we needed non-US based servers for those products.
non-free is a totally other story, the Debian Social Contract supports
Free Software (Free like freedom not beer).
Therefore some free (like beer) software which is not free (freedom of
modifying, using in whatever way you want to and redistribute) can be
legally distributed by our friend Marillat, whitout infringing any Law.
While this same Software will not be distributed by Debian since it is
not in agreement with our Social Contract.
Michel.
Reply to: