Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in > "main" that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort > to ensure that everyting in main is DFSG-free, our users cannot make a > good-faith assumption that they can exercise certain freedoms with the > software on their Debian systems without reading every word of every > copyright license.
Does a patent make code non-DFSG-free? Perhaps Debian says "yes", but I don't quite understand the logic. Firstly, Debian cannot possibly guarantee that none of the code it distributes infringes on any patent in any country. So users in any case cannot "make a good-faith assumption" that they are free to use the code in their country. In which case, why throw out code that definitely is patented in the US? Why not just add a comment warning about the problem? Secondly, one of the desirable characteristics of free software is that it cannot later be withdrawn by the owner and become non-free. If a patent makes a program non-free then this characteristic no longer applies to "DFSG-free": submarine patents can surface years later, forgotten patents can be rediscovered, and, most threateningly, governments can broaden existing and enforce new forms of so called "intellectual property". Thirdly, it is rather difficult to decide whether a program itself infringes a patent or only the use or certain uses of the program. For example, there may be a patent in the EU on using a database to catalogue a stamp collection. In which, case should Debian stop distributing database software? Obviously not, but there are less clear cases. In general, it doesn't philosophically make sense to declare a program to be non-DFSG-free just because certain applications of the (perhaps modified) program are illegal in certain countries. Fourthly, since any program can be modified so as to infringe any software patent, the only way Debian can fully protect its users from infringing patents is to only distribute software that does not allow modification! So, I think you fulfill the social contract better by warning users about possible patent problems rather than removing the code in cases where you are not actually forced to do so by some repressive government. Edmund
