On 04/12/12 07:37, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Hi,
in February, Stefano Zacchiroli added a document titled "Debian
Position on Software Patents" to our website:
http://www.debian.org/legal/patent
This document includes both a position and a policy regarding software
patents. It states:
1.
Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
patents; Debian contributors should not package or distribute
software they know to infringe a patent.
2.
Debian will not accept a patent license that is inconsistent with
the Debian Social Contract
<http://www.debian.org/social_contract> or Debian Free Software
Guidelines <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>.
3.
Unless communications related to patents are subject to
attorney-client privilege, community members may be forced to
produce them in a lawsuit. Also, patent concerns expressed
publicly may turn out to be unfounded but create a good deal of
fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the meantime. Therefore, please
refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing
patents outside of communication with legal counsel, where they
are subject to attorney-client privilege.
4.
Patent risks affect the entire community. If you are concerned
about a specific patent, please do not keep it to yourself ---
notify legal counsel.
5.
All communication related to specific patent risk should be
directed to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, which
is maintained under the rules of attorney-client privilege. The
risk will be evaluated and any necessary response will be made
directly to affected parties.
As far as I know, this document was not publically discussed before
being published (see
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/legal/patent.wml?view=log
and http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00117.html ).
I see this as amounting to:
1. A message to both users and contributors that patent infringement
in Debian is unwanted.
2. A message to both users and contributors that Debian will only
accept to ship software covered by patents if the patents
concerned were licensed free of restrictions (DFSG-like requirements).
3. A request to share specific patent concerns.
4. An indication that a private contact point for sharing specific
patent concerns exists.
5. A request/demand that people concerned with specific patent issues
do not share their concerns, except with the contact point
mentioned in 3.
1. is fairly obvious. 2. is welcome, although I suppose this is just
officializing a stance we were already taking. 3. can be considered a
specific case of our pretty obvious desire to have our bugs reported.
4. is excellent news. 5. is, however, anti-transparency, and IMO
against our ethics. Such a position statement cannot be made prior to
discussion. Since it looks like this wasn't discussed yet, I am hereby
lauching a public discussion on 5. This is not a poll, but I'd like to
see the opinions of others on it. and whether it is unanimous or not.
Leaving the validity of 5. aside, I find that this document is very
confusing. It's not just a policy, and it's talking to several groups.
I suggest:
* To separe 1. , 3. and 4. from the rest. These could be grouped in
a document on intellectual property explaining that Debian takes
into account both copyright and patents and offering contact
points for reporting/discussing specific IP issues.
* To consider merging 2. with the social contract:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
The free software guidelines could be modified to specify that our
freedom requirements apply not only to copyright licenses, but
also to patent licenses.
A modification of a Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority,
but I don't think this would be hard to reach.
Thanks to MJ Ray for his reply when I asked about this document's origins.
I'm very much unhappy with the policies put down here, looking at the
amount of patents Microsoft is holding, it making developing any
software a challenge; that results in the Debian repos being --emtpy--.
As a result I suggest, restricting the download and hosting of such
software in the US.. since software patents practically only apply to
the US, and until such laws are removed (which's basically a restriction
of what you write in a text editor), the people of the US should be
faced with such inconvenience.
