I wrote: > No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents. > Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the > owner is likely to enforce them on us.
Marty writes: > Does this policy also determine the "non-free" designation A work that infringes a patent that is likely to be enforced against us cannot be distributed at all. I wrote: > Don't forget non-DE as well. > I never understood the reasoning for this approach. This divides free > software according to local ordinances. I think the countries which > impose them should be designated "non-free" instead. I don't understand what you mean by "...the countries which impose them should be designated non-free..." > This raises another point which is unclear to me -- how much of the > current "non-free" repository is like the old "non-US" in that the > problem is really non-free local ordinances, rather than software > licenses? None that I know of. Non-free is about licensing. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]