Consider the following situation: * Code (say MPEG encoder code) is considered to be covered by patents * Those patents are considered to be actively enforced * Code implementing an MPEG encoder is shipped in a source package * This code is not compiled or used, and the user is not encouraged to compile it or use it, and is actually warned against compiling or using it without a patent license.
Now, it seems to me that this shouldn't create any legal patent problems. Under patent law, describing how to perform a patented process is supposed to be legally protected -- in fact, it's required under the patent publication laws. Actual use of the patented process is restricted, of course, but the situation I just described is specifically intended to discourage and prevent use, while allowing people to study the code. How debased is our patent system? Do the lawyers or people paying attention to the status of legal cases think that this is safe or not (or safe in some countries and not in others)? The point of this question is that it means the difference between (1) shipping a modified "upstream" tarball to delete patent-encumbered code and (2) deleting/disabling the patent-encumbered code in the .diff.gz Obviously we would prefer (2) for reasons of policy and practicality. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
