Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian
Hi, I have just read the discussion about patents and the Debian Position on Software Patents [1] The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs (Audio+Video, at least decoders), namely MP3 and MPEG4. Potential packages, that need review: gstreamer[version]-plugins-ugly libxine1-ffmpeg libavcodec[version] libavformat[version] vlc chromium-browser libk3b6-extracodecs mencoder ...anything else, that I missed. How-to reproduce: 1. Install fresh Debian system, with several Multimedia Players, such as GNOME Totem, KDE Kaffeine, VLC. 2. Play MPEG4 and MP3 in Kaffeine 3. Play MPEG4 and MP3 in VLC 4. Compare this to Red Hat or SUSE What happens ? Debian 6.0 squeeze will play both MPEG4 and MP3 files out-of-the-box, by default. (using *only* main repository packages) Red Hat (both RHEL and Fedora) and SUSE will *not* play those files, until the user manually installs the codecs from unofficial repository. Red Hat and SUSE will only play OGG Vorbis, Theora and WebM codecs out-of-the-box. I don't know what to do in this situation, few possibilities: -do nothing -move patent-encumbered codecs into non-free repo ? Or external repo? [1] http://www.debian.org/legal/patent -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov Debian User. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOJ6w=gsn7zn5w+shk9xe7or0auubpjojcyqba__hdtprrt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian
On 28/03/12 07:40, Alexey Eromenko wrote: The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs As mentioned in Debian's patent policy http://www.debian.org/legal/patent point 3, please refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing patents outside of communication with legal counsel, where they are subject to attorney-client privilege. Transparency and public discussion are usually good things, but patents are an area where they can be harmful. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f72c5dc.3070...@debian.org
Re: Bug#666010: ITP: nvidia-texture-tools -- image processing and texture manipulation tools
I am Cc'ing the DPL for clarification. Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Lennart Weller l...@ring0.de wrote: Am 28.03.2012 01:01, schrieb Ben Hutchings: Since you've accepted as fact that this software infringes those patents, it looks like you're about to violate item 1 of the Debian patent policy. Ben. S3TC is not actively enforced by S3. And I took this thread [1] as a reference to create the ITP anyway. According to this thread from 2010 there are at least three other projects already using the S3TC algorithms. And there is more than one project which depends on this package. e.g. 0ad and wine [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/12/msg00062.html I think Ben's point is that the Debian Patent Policy[1] was published on February 19, 2012, and therefore would supersede any previous consensus regarding the inclusion of patent encumbered software where the included patents are not being actively enforced. Personally, I agree with the posters in the thread you cited[2]. If this is going to be the project's official position, it may as well close shop. I must have missed this policy when it was announced. Who wrote that policy? It changes long standing traditions in Debian. The first item Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents is impossible. Debian would have to stop distributing almost anything. I am sure gcc is encumbered by unenforced patents. Also, the third item, AKA The first rule of Patents is that we do not talk about Patents, is too broad. If someone posts publicly, then no one would be surprised to see it quoted far and wide. Attorneys can subpoena your private records, but they could do that regardless of whether you posted something publicly. Was the intention of that point that you should not discuss anything in private except with an attorney? So do not post anything to debian-private expecting it not to get subpoenaed? That would be more sensible advice. The other points are good, but those two really made me scratch my head. In contrast, the patent FAQ at http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq is good. So, who, in particular, wrote the patent policy at http://www.debian.org/legal/patent Regards, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120328.023206.1893294338866990004.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Bug#666010: ITP: nvidia-texture-tools -- image processing and texture manipulation tools
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 02:32:06AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
I am Cc'ing the DPL for clarification.
[ then please do so at leader@d.o ]
In contrast, the patent FAQ at
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq
is good.
So, who, in particular, wrote the patent policy at
http://www.debian.org/legal/patent
The same people who wrote the patent FAQ, i.e. Debian legal counsel via
SPI, at SFLC. There is no contradiction between the two documents.
Each one of us is free to *think* that a piece of software in the Debian
archive is patent encumbered, whatever that means, and possibly
thinking so due to the legitimate interests of patent owners that want
*everybody* to think pieces of software are encumbered by their own
patents (it is like asking the restaurant owner if the food is good,
right?).
But until it is proven that the specific version of a software we
distribute in Debian is in violation of some patents, I *personally*
don't think we have reasons to believe it is the case. Nor we have any
interest to look into it (which is sad, but that is pretty much what the
patent system induces people to do).
I also duly notice that, while discussing general matters is fine,
discussing specific issues is in violation of what the patent-faq
recommends Free Software projects to do.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120328095557.ga8...@upsilon.cc
DATA STUDIO - ESTÚDIO DE GRAVAÇÃO DE BANDAS, JINGLES E SPOTS PUBLICITÁRIOS.
OLÁ, VENHO ATRAVÉS DESTE E-MAIL APRESENTAR O DATA STUDIO: PARA CONSULTAS DE ORÇAMENTOS DE JINGLES, SPOTS, VINHETAS, LOCUÇÕES, BASTA ENTRAR EM CONTATO POR ESTE E-MAIL OU PELO SITE. QUEM TIVER INTERESSE TENHO UM PORTIFÓLIO DE AUDIO PARA ENVIO E TAMBÉM O ENDEREÇO DO SITE. GRATO PELA ATENÇÃO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/328938.odrvs...@gmail.com
Re: Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian
On Wednesday 28 Mar 2012, Alexey Eromenko wrote: I have just read the discussion about patents and the Debian Position on Software Patents [1] The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs (Audio+Video, at least decoders), namely MP3 and MPEG4. Potential packages, that need review: gstreamer[version]-plugins-ugly libxine1-ffmpeg libavcodec[version] libavformat[version] vlc chromium-browser libk3b6-extracodecs mencoder ...anything else, that I missed. How-to reproduce: 1. Install fresh Debian system, with several Multimedia Players, such as GNOME Totem, KDE Kaffeine, VLC. 2. Play MPEG4 and MP3 in Kaffeine 3. Play MPEG4 and MP3 in VLC 4. Compare this to Red Hat or SUSE What happens ? Debian 6.0 squeeze will play both MPEG4 and MP3 files out-of-the-box, by default. (using *only* main repository packages) Red Hat (both RHEL and Fedora) and SUSE will *not* play those files, until the user manually installs the codecs from unofficial repository. Red Hat and SUSE will only play OGG Vorbis, Theora and WebM codecs out-of-the-box. I don't know what to do in this situation, few possibilities: -do nothing -move patent-encumbered codecs into non-free repo ? Or external repo? - Have a special repository for retrogressive countries that enforce software patents, leaving the rest of the world unpenalised (India and the EU, for instance, do not recognise software patents) for the follies of a few. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur || r...@kandalaya.org || GPG: http://otheronepercent.blogspot.com || http://kandalaya.org || CC68 It is the mind that moves || http://schizoid.in || D17F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203281913.13090.r...@linux-delhi.org
Re: Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian
On Wednesday 28 Mar 2012, Simon McVittie wrote: On 28/03/12 07:40, Alexey Eromenko wrote: The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs As mentioned in Debian's patent policy http://www.debian.org/legal/patent point 3, please refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing patents outside of communication with legal counsel, where they are subject to attorney-client privilege. Transparency and public discussion are usually good things, but patents are an area where they can be harmful. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. In essence, that is foreclosing all peer-to-peer discussion about patents in the context of Debian. I happen to be from a state that doesn't recognise software patents, and fail to see why the spectre of fear created by one single country should proscribe all free and open discussion and education about an issue that eventually (through Debian distributions) affects us all. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur || r...@kandalaya.org || GPG: http://otheronepercent.blogspot.com || http://kandalaya.org || CC68 It is the mind that moves || http://schizoid.in || D17F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203281919.36949.r...@linux-delhi.org
Re: Bug#666010: ITP: nvidia-texture-tools -- image processing and texture manipulation tools
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Each one of us is free to *think* that a piece of software in the Debian archive is patent encumbered, whatever that means, and possibly thinking so due to the legitimate interests of patent owners that want *everybody* to think pieces of software are encumbered by their own patents (it is like asking the restaurant owner if the food is good, right?). But the policy refers to knowingly violating patents. Are you claiming that knowingly refers only to cases where lawyers have told us this? Most people wouldn't interpret it that way. And that then means anyone can post to the list saying by the way, MP3 is covered by patents and Debian is now knowingly violating the patent (after all, we were just told about it, so now we know it) and must delete everything that handles MP3. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.00.1203280714120.5...@oxygen.rahul.net
Re: Patents and Multimedia codecs in Debian
2012/3/28 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) r...@linux-delhi.org: On Wednesday 28 Mar 2012, Simon McVittie wrote: On 28/03/12 07:40, Alexey Eromenko wrote: The Debian project includes a number of patent-encumbered Multimedia codecs As mentioned in Debian's patent policy http://www.debian.org/legal/patent point 3, please refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing patents outside of communication with legal counsel, where they are subject to attorney-client privilege. Transparency and public discussion are usually good things, but patents are an area where they can be harmful. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. In essence, that is foreclosing all peer-to-peer discussion about patents in the context of Debian. I happen to be from a state that doesn't recognise software patents, and fail to see why the spectre of fear created by one single country should proscribe all free and open discussion and education about an issue that eventually (through Debian distributions) affects us all. It's not just one country, though[1]. While the spectre of fear may originate in the United States (and that's debatable) the infection has spread across the globe. [1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Countries_and_regions -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnytbwhgwtbb_k537w9akbskjzceafj3t_ts17pke3_m...@mail.gmail.com
