On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents > > that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision > > can be made. > > In fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not > actively being enforced. Aside from the point that having knowledge of > the patents can lead to charges of *willful* infringement, I believe it's > far better if Debian acts as if software patents did not exist until they > become an imminent issue -- just as we normally ignore any patents > pertaining to ftp sites and publishing of web content, until and unless > we see a letter from a patent holder's lawyer.
I wholeheartedly agree. And I think the extra clutter in peoples' mailboxes that this "AOL" will constitute is worth it, if it helps convince one person to STFU when considering hypothesizing about potential patent problems on this list :) I'll say it again, just to be sure: unless you have a letter from a patent holder's lawyer, please do not post here to tell us about "potential patent problems" with package X, Y, or Z. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] People are beginning to notice you. Try dressing before you leave the house.
