On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 13:08, Walter Landry wrote: > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > > You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can > > > download the the .orig.tar.gz file, so it can't be in that. Even if > > > the .diff.gz takes it out. > > > > Hmm, but why? You're explicitly allowed to describe how a patented > > algorithm works, that's the whole point of patents. And source code > > is just a detailed description of how the algorithm works. > > > > Are you talking about distributability or about freeness? > > I'm talking about distributability. You are not allowed to distribute > an implementation of a patent. The code is an implementation of that > patent. We can argue whether that makes sense, but that is my > understanding of the law.
That doesn't sound right to me. (Though, really, what do I know? All standard disclaimers apply.) I was under the impression that patents are use licenses, and are as such tied to the use you make of the objects covered by them. You can make a car engine that infringes on a particular patent, for example, without a license; you just can't put it in your car and drive around. If that particular configuration of metal just happens to be very good at distributing water to a row of plants in a garden, the patent holder is out of luck regarding my use of the engine as a watering can (unless s/he owns the patent on that use of the engine as well). If I'm right, then the source file cannot be held as violating a patent claim unless it's compiled and executed.
