On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:49:53 +0100 Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 01:15:00PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > AFAICT, the usual Debian practice to deal with software patents is not > > worrying about them unless they are actively enforced. > > This is not a description of Debian's practice when dealing with > software patents.
It's what is usually said on debian-legal about the topic... Obviously, there's no warranty that each and every package in Debian follows consistently this practice. But it should, AFAIK. > For example patents on browsers are actively > enforced, but Debian turns a blind eye. In the sense that many people do *know* about those actively enforced patents and, still, pretend there is no problem? > For some mysterious reason > encoding software is treated different from everything else. Mmmh, I was under the impression that audio/video MPEG encoding was one of the main fields encumbered by actively enforced software patents. You instead claim that there are other fields with similar issues, while the Debian Project seems to only care about MPEG patents... Have you ever discussed this on debian-devel/debian-legal? -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpsbxp7NjrbA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
