** Diego Biurrun :: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:38:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:45:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:54:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek > > > wrote: > > > > > > However, the reason Debian continues to include the mp3 > > > > decoder library is that this patent, like so many other > > > > software patents, does not appear to be actively enforced. > > > > This is the standard Debian uses in deciding whether to > > > > distribute the software; Red Hat evidently uses a different > > > > standard. > > > > > Is that the standard Debian practise? Is that in the policy > > > somewhere? > > > > Debian policy governs the technical details of package creation. > > This is a matter that's out of scope of the policy document; my > > comments reflect the de facto policy of the ftp team as I > > understand it. > > Maybe it's time to create some sort of patent/ftp/XXX policy then. > The core of this thread revolves around the problem that Debian's > stance towards patents is unclear and inconsistent. Some programs > are jugded impossible to package due to patent problems, while > others aren't. This is further complicated by the fact that some > MP3 encoders and multimedia applications are packaged while others > are not, even though they do the same things and thus fall under > the scope of the same patents.
I was under the impression that Debian *did* have a policy: if the patent is enforced, towards it, then the software will go to non_US -- to the benefit of the sane jurisdictions (as is the EU, in principle). > > > > AFAICT Debian includes many packages that violate software > > > patents, even actively enforced ones. It's simply impossible > > > to avoid. A very prominent example is libts/libdca, where the > > > developers closed the project due to patent threats by DTC > > > Inc.: > > > > > http://packages.debian.org/stable/libdevel/libdts-dev > > > http://developers.videolan.org/libdca.html > > > > DTS Inc. claims that distributing this software is a violation > > of their patent EP 864 146. At DTS Inc. request, we decided, > > as a precautionary measure, to provisionally suspend the > > distribution of libdca while reviewing DTS Inc. claim. This is > > not an acknowledgement of the validity of the claim. The > > previous name "libdts" was changed to "libdca" as a > > precautionary measure. > > > > So upstream hasn't even decided yet what to think of the patent > > claim, they've just taken things off-line as a precaution. > > That's a rather weak precedent for "enforcement". > > VideoLAN is hosted by ECP, a university from Paris where the > project originated. DTS Inc. sent ECP a cease and desist letter > stating that they should stop developing libdts, get a patent > license from them or prepare to get sued. The ECP lawyer tried to > settle amicably without success. DTS requested fees amounting to > thousands of dollars per day and the university did not want to go > to court. That was more than one year ago and libdts is no longer > distributed on its own and has been removed from VLC. Furthermore > development on the library has stopped. > > That's as good a precedent for patent enforcement as you'll get. > FUD at its best, but it worked. This is how the patent scare > works. > > Diego Not down here, thanks God and our corrupt lawmakers. Seriously. Software patents are just plain Evil. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
