Randy McMurchy wrote: > 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.
If it were really an issue, I believe Apple would take action against FreeType to prevent them from distributing the code. Reviewing svn, the earliest entry is rev 1752 where Tushar moved the xml from x/lib/. We've lost the earlier history, however I think I may have put this into BLFS. It's not in the credits section. I don't recall a discussion on the list about it, but I did attend a Usenix session by Keith Packard in 1993 and he did recommend using this switch. I also think that many distros turn on the switch as mentioned in the link above, and have never heard an issue. BTW, a 1989 patent expires in 2006. If you want to explain the switch better, please feel free, but I don't think using it is a problem. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
