Le Vendredi 12 Août 2005 07:21, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > > > Le Samedi 6 Août 2005 06:40, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > Hi Florent, > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:28:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > > > > > Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to > > > > > > > decide if he will fix the bug or not. > > > > > > > > > > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however > > > > > > -- either it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > > > > > > > > > Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below). > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such > > > > > > > problem is treated. > > > > > > > > > > > > That bug shows people expressing the opinions that > > > > > > > > > > > > - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent > > > > > > before we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced > > > > > > against us - we consider the existence of prior art as sufficient > > > > > > reason to ignore the patent, since legally, the patent is invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how > > > > > > either relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > > > > > > > > > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that > > > > > there is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from > > > > > previous discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : > > > > > "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as > > > > > long as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not > > > > > been challanged." > > > > > > > > > It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let > > > > > this software in Debian, even if the patent has not been > > > > > challenged ?). > > > > > > > Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm > > > > personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the > > > > purview of the ftp team to decide. > > > > > > Is this bug still being held open for some reason? There don't seem to > > > be > > > > What did the ftp team decide ? > > I'm not aware that they decided anything. Did you ask them?
Could you please decide to keep or remove this package from Debian ? Thanks. -- Florent
pgptQ5fyey3EN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
