Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we really have other packages in there for other reasons than the > cryptography laws? I couldn't find any. I think calling it "crypto" > makes a lot of sense. It's a clear label, and people will know how > to treat those packages in their country.
libmagick4g-lzw If you look at the license, it's DFSG, so the only reason it's in non-free is because of the Unisys patent. [Scott, that's right isn't it?] This is wrong AFAICS. It should be in non-US/main, since anywhere but the USA it could go on our official CDs. Also, we are currently leaving ourselves open to legal action from Unisys for disseminating code that implements their patented code. > We'll have to find another place for packages that are patent-encumbered > in weird ways, if any show up. "non-free" will fit the bill in most > cases, I think. I don't think so. Patent holders get the right to ask people to pay them for unauthorised use of their patented technology, and also to ensure that all items using the patented technology be destroyed. This could be very bad for us, so anything covered by a patent should probably be kept outside the USA. Of course, with the US patent office's tendency to allow trivial patents that could mean the whole distribution, so it would probably make sense to restrict it to software where the patent holder appears to be trying to enforce the patent (i.e. LZW & Unisys). Cheers, Phil.
