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

[Marty <martyb@ix.netcom.com>]

hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> 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?

Even if that's true (I doubt it) the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free
Software Guidelines don't seem to include any language suggesting that a
particular nation's laws should take precedence in setting Debian policy.

  I always thought of
> it as international, possibly European.

Me too, which is why the non-US designation always seemed like such an anomaly.

> -- hendrik