-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/09/2011 04:37 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: > Le mercredi 09 novembre 2011 à 21:40 +0100, Florian Hubold a écrit : >> Am 09.11.2011 21:15, schrieb Michael Scherer: >>> Le mercredi 09 novembre 2011 à 14:14 +0100, Florian Hubold a écrit : >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> after updating cairo-dock and -plugins to the latest version, >>>> it has come to my attention that cairo-dock has been removed >>>> from Fedora due to patent issues, as can be seen here: >>>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=cairo-dock.git;a=blob;f=dead.package;h=2f21e743a00cfe3accc33b8d5c974f2572bcdfc5;hb=9e2eb0b9936f326a454f6104a81c6061a5528625 >>>> I've found no further explanation about this so far. >>>> >>>> The corresponding patent (from Apple) should be this one: >>>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,434,177.PN.&OS=PN/7,434,177&RS=PN/7,434,177 >>>> IMHO this Apple patent should not have been issued because of prior art: >>>> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Apple_Dock but currently it's effective and we >>>> need to >>>> respect it. >>> The base claim is indeed weak. >>> >>>> A related discussions about cairo-dock and trademarks of >>>> some of the included icons in cairo-dock-plugins can be seen here: >>>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2009-January/000505.html >>>> To be honest, i don't think this was appropriate as those icons >>>> clearly seem to come from the game pingus, which is FL/OSS. >>>> >>>> So i request cairo-dock and cairo-dock-plugins and cairo-dock-themes >>>> be moved to tainted. Any objections? >>> Yes, I do have one, I think we agreed that tainted was for enforced >>> patents, or those that would likely be enforced. While the definition is >>> fuzzy, I doubt that the patent will be enforced, mainly because it is >>> weak, >>> >>> Red Hat lawyers are right for a US company, but we are not in the same >>> position as Red Hat ( ie, we are not in the US, we are not a company >>> with several millions on the bank account and no one will ever attack us >>> because we are competing with them ). >> Wel, i don't understand this. Last time we talked about patents >> in the nonfree+tainted discussions, concensus seemed to be that >> even if patents don't apply here (europe), we need to respect them. >> So do we or don't we? >> >> IIUC you suggest that cairo-dock* stays where it is? > > Well, I think we said we would place packages with various problem > related to the law, and that could be patent or something else. > " > stuff we think we can redistribute, but that may have some > patent issues or other restrictions in other countries > " > > The whole point is what is exactly "patent issue". > > One definition would be "someone found a patent related, that is > currently valid". That's one possibility. > > Another one would be "we have heard of a significant problem with > something", and that would be my position ( which is annoying, because > that's not a real good set of criteria to decide, and that just lack > precisions, too fuzzy ). > > On one hand, video codecs are a patent minefield ( mp3 story 10 years > ago, the story of the mpeg la patent pool bac in february this year, etc > ). > > On the other hand, interfaces didn't see much patents attack, from what > I know ( besides the whole samsung/apple case, but that's maybe more > subtle as that's "design patent", which is different from a software > patent ). But maybe I am wrong on that point, and indeed, not having > issues now doesn't mean we are safe later. > > One example that was often given is the progress bar > ( http://badpatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/progress-bar.html ) and > despites it being expired now, no one ever did anything for that ( at > least, from what I know ). > > Another example could be java ( Oracle vs Google case ), but the case is > more complex since Oracle own Java, and so the risk is quite low. > > I think we can agree that we should not place everything in tainted, or > that would just mean everybody will use and have tainted and that it > will be mirrored everywhere, thus making the distinction useless ( and I > personally still think that's not useful for now ). > >>> For the icons, what is the problem exactly, ie what icons are >>> copyrighted ? >> Only linked the ml thread for the icons for reference. It is not said >> which are trademarked (and more important by whom) i guess it could >> be seen as a derivated work to the original lemmings game from DMA design. >> But as the game pingus is existing, and has not been sued, >> i don't think they have a valid point there. > > Maybe the problem is somewhere else, like a icon of windows, stuff like > that. Hence the question. > Take a look here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
and here: http://opensource.org/docs/osd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mageia - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOu1ZzAAoJECPQsolLqbfHrH4IALXAkMnvU3BhWYDEuWdTPXaF OYgvubcswYjzBgp3zSraEO2dt4fpQ1RQ1eIm7jdmWUJR2zfDqGuTcdZcMrGHa8re FfQfOo6cQT8pLyoh3n+/vKuXDzHge5S4KifIRIIoDSWFNQ+8yZjnrv8rwOjVihBY 68Q47tZAHIPYSg850sDfHP1JwIUD4T3Ea/LCAt6Bj9uOE2cQrDDMCw05vRRToa+N fmKtMB9MZnNbxlTKjKhTsHBS+DRbtzO6mIbH9A+pT9S495qn8Fz+92+21jbo6MYJ xtIuT66kqkHJIRTMS8CFVM+Vi6FTV0uq547aLAeKnI+4SMUQsePt/LMIhSD+DEE= =IVdQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
