Hi all, I went to fix the bug about the poorly written description of our enabling of the Bytecode Interpreter in the FreeType2 instructions. So, to get some background, I visited http://www.freetype.org/patents.html
Now I'm sure this issue has come up a long time ago (as I don't remember any discussion since I've been involved with (B)LFS) and it was determined that our enabling of the Bytecode Interpreter does *NOT* violate Apple's patents. But I'm not so sure about that. I feel our enabling of the Bytecode Interpreter in the FreeType2 source *is* a violation of Apple's patent. Perhaps we can all visit this issue again and clarify it for me how we are *not* in violation. I understand we are not *distributing* code that includes the enabling of the Interpreter, but having the instruction in the book as the recommended default installation seems in violation. Perhaps I'm just overly concerned. I would appreciate it if some of you that remember previous conversation about this could relay what you remember. I searched the archives, but didn't really find anything useful. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 18:26:00 up 63 days, 3:50, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.28, 0.47 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
