Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 15/08/2020 18:34, Paul Oranje wrote: Op 11 aug. 2020, om 02:30 heeft Mauro Mozzarelli het volgende geschreven: On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: -Original Message- From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: Mauro Mozzarelli writes: On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their relationship with OpenWrt? This is answered by the FAQ: https://openwrt.org/faq/general And what is the "legal risk"? I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live under some regime you don't like or respect. Bjørn Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right to limit everyone's freedom, just to appease some. That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove that stuff entirely. If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can make it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to be. I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. Best Adrian Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years of debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put into law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor constraints imposed from monopolistic organizations. The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and EU citizens' will must too be respected. True as this may be - probably is - still it is not really relevant to the question at hand. Besides, the EU **does** allow for software patent, or more precisely, the EU Patent Office (based in Rijswijk Netherlands) does, though quite a lot of jurists do object to the policies on software patents of the EUPO, the FSFE of course among those. As long as a patent isn't negated by a court it is considered valid. Luckily many holders of such patents do not dare to uphold these in court in order to avoid the risk of it getting negated, even if getting a patent negated is quite difficult (as these are assumed to be valid). We know EUPO accepts software patents registrations. However, as you say, these are not legally enforceable because they are not supported by law. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
> Op 11 aug. 2020, om 02:30 heeft Mauro Mozzarelli het > volgende geschreven: > > On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: > >>> -Original Message- >>> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] >>> On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli >>> Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 >>> To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >>> Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED >>> >>> On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: >>>> Mauro Mozzarelli writes: >>>>> On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella >>>>>> organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk >>>>>> without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. >>>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? >>>>> Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their >>>>> relationship with OpenWrt? >>>> This is answered by the FAQ: >>>> https://openwrt.org/faq/general >>>> >>>>> And what is the "legal risk"? >>>> I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. >>>> >>>> This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not >>>> putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live >>>> under some regime you don't like or respect. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bjørn >>> Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right >>> to limit >>> everyone's freedom, just to appease some. >> That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove that stuff >> entirely. >> >>> If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can >>> make >>> it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or >>> they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but >>> in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. >> But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment >> it has to care about. >> And that of course includes caring about the interests of important >> stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions >> based on how we would like the world to be. >> >> I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. >> >> Best >> >> Adrian > > Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and other > Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years of debate. > listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put into law that freedom > from software patents that allows us all to contribute to the community > without fear of litigation nor constraints imposed from monopolistic > organizations. > > The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and EU > citizens' will must too be respected. True as this may be - probably is - still it is not really relevant to the question at hand. Besides, the EU **does** allow for software patent, or more precisely, the EU Patent Office (based in Rijswijk Netherlands) does, though quite a lot of jurists do object to the policies on software patents of the EUPO, the FSFE of course among those. As long as a patent isn't negated by a court it is considered valid. Luckily many holders of such patents do not dare to uphold these in court in order to avoid the risk of it getting negated, even if getting a patent negated is quite difficult (as these are assumed to be valid). > >>>> ___ >>>> openwrt-devel mailing list >>>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel >>> ___ >>> openwrt-devel mailing list >>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 01:30:08AM +0100, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: > Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and > other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years of > debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put into > law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to > contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor constraints > imposed from monopolistic organizations. > > The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and EU > citizens' will must too be respected. Mauro, I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in this thread trying to deny the rights or freedoms of EU citizens, nor expressing disagreement with EU law on software patents. Rather, I think they are trying to point out that OpenWRT must also accommodate developers and users who live in jurisdictions that, sadly, do not grant them the same rights and freedoms as the EU does. I hope that one day more jurisdictions will take a European approach to software patents; but in the meantime, it would be tragic if a person in e.g. the USA were to inadvertently get into serious legal trouble simply by developing or using OpenWRT. So, the question is how to avoid that sort of tragedy. Ideally, the answer would still uphold user and developer rights to the maximum extent that each jurisdiction will permit. I see only two broad approaches available to avoiding the tragedy: 1. "Lowest common denominator". Any software that might place a developer or user in legal jeopardy, wherever they are in the world, should be excluded from distribution in OpenWRT. (I personally dislike this approach, because although it would avoid the tragedy mentioned above, it fails to uphold user and developer rights to the maximum extent that each jurisdiction will permit.) 2. "Selector switches". OpenWRT should contain a mechanism to allow the user/developer to choose whether or not to enable (and ideally, whether or not to even *receive*) patent-encumbered code. (I personally think this is the better approach.) I can see two ways to implement the "selector switches" approach: 2a. Compile-time switch. (This seems to be the current approach.) 2b. Separate package repositories. (This seems to be your proposed approach.) As I mentioned in a separate message in this thread, I suppport your proposal of (IIUC) a separate repo for patent-encumbered software, i.e. 2b above. I think that is better than a compile-time switch (2a above) for several reasons: - Usability. For instance, if a user downloads a binary of OpenWRT, then the installation/setup interface for that binary could ask the user whether or not to enable repositories other than the default (and perhaps explain to them the implications of this). This would not be easy to achieve with a compile time option. - Codebase hygiene. If the primary OpenWRT Git repo or package repo contains patent-encumbered code (which I think might be the case at the moment?), then this could put in jeopardy those OpenWRT developers who live in jurisdictions that uphold software patents, even if those developers never enable the relevant compile-time option. (I.e. because they would still be receiving/distributing patent-encumbered code, which might count as an infringement.) But if patent-encumbered code is kept cleanly separate from the primary OpenWRT Git repo and package repo, then any developer or user who wishes to completely avoid patent-encumbered code can easily do so; and likewise, any developer or user who wishes to install or hack on patent-encumbered code can equally easily do so. For maximum safety and choice for users and developers, I propose that OpenWRT adopts the following variant of approach 2b: Package repository name | Enabled | Non-free | Patented | by | software | software | default? | allowed? | allowed? +==+==+= main| Yes | No | No +--+--+- non-free* | No | Yes | No +--+--+- patent-encumbered | No** | No | Yes +--+--+- non-free-patent-encumbered* | No | Yes | Yes * By "non-free" here, I mean software that is non-free (i.e. does not uphold the Four Freedoms) for reasons *other* than patent encumbrance. Closed-source binary BLOBs, for example. ** I suppose it would be possible in principle, in future, to distribute "-eu" builds that have the patent-encumbered
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 01:07:59PM +0200, Alberto Bursi wrote: > > On 11/08/20 12:42, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: > > > > > > On 11/08/2020 02:30, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: > > > On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] > > > > > On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli > > > > > Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 > > > > > To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED > > > > > > > > > > On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > > > > > Mauro Mozzarelli writes: > > > > > > > On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its > > > > > > > > umbrella > > > > > > > > organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk > > > > > > > > without at least contacting them first and getting their > > > > > > > > approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? > > > > > > > Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their > > > > > > > relationship with OpenWrt? > > > > > > This is answered by the FAQ: > > > > > > https://openwrt.org/faq/general > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is the "legal risk"? > > > > > > I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not > > > > > > putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to > > > > > > live > > > > > > under some regime you don't like or respect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bjørn > > > > > Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not > > > > > think it is right to limit > > > > > everyone's freedom, just to appease some. > > > > That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just > > > > remove that stuff entirely. > > > > > > > > > If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this > > > > > software, we can make > > > > > it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software > > > > > components (or > > > > > they can propose and implement changes that achieve that > > > > > themselves), but > > > > > in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. > > > > But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an > > > > environment it has to care about. > > > > And that of course includes caring about the interests of > > > > important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and > > > > not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to > > > > be. > > > > > > > > I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > Adrian > > > > > > Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and > > > other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years > > > of debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put > > > into law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to > > > contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor > > > constraints imposed from monopolistic organizations. > > > > > > The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and > > > EU citizens' will must too be respected. > > > > > > > I'm not a contributor or serious user so take my words with as much salt > > as you please, but I think it is worth noting that decisions like this > > play a big part in establishing what is considered normal. > > > > The unlicensed use of cryptography is strictly illegal in countries such > > as Iran and Cuba, but I know of no FOSS project which even considers > > forgoing cryptography in order to comply with such rules. > > > Afaik the main problem is just the USA and its litigation-friendly legal > syst
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 11/08/20 12:42, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: On 11/08/2020 02:30, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: -Original Message- From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: Mauro Mozzarelli writes: On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their relationship with OpenWrt? This is answered by the FAQ: https://openwrt.org/faq/general And what is the "legal risk"? I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live under some regime you don't like or respect. Bjørn Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right to limit everyone's freedom, just to appease some. That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove that stuff entirely. If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can make it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to be. I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. Best Adrian Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years of debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put into law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor constraints imposed from monopolistic organizations. The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and EU citizens' will must too be respected. I'm not a contributor or serious user so take my words with as much salt as you please, but I think it is worth noting that decisions like this play a big part in establishing what is considered normal. The unlicensed use of cryptography is strictly illegal in countries such as Iran and Cuba, but I know of no FOSS project which even considers forgoing cryptography in order to comply with such rules. Afaik the main problem is just the USA and its litigation-friendly legal system that could allow someone to hurt OpenWrt infrastructure in USA (like the SPI as others mentioned). OpenWrt has no infrastructure in Cuba or Iran or even China so if we are violating their regulations there is nothing they can do about it. -Alberto ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 11/08/2020 02:30, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: -Original Message- From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: Mauro Mozzarelli writes: On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their relationship with OpenWrt? This is answered by the FAQ: https://openwrt.org/faq/general And what is the "legal risk"? I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live under some regime you don't like or respect. Bjørn Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right to limit everyone's freedom, just to appease some. That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove that stuff entirely. If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can make it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to be. I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. Best Adrian Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years of debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put into law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor constraints imposed from monopolistic organizations. The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and EU citizens' will must too be respected. I'm not a contributor or serious user so take my words with as much salt as you please, but I think it is worth noting that decisions like this play a big part in establishing what is considered normal. The unlicensed use of cryptography is strictly illegal in countries such as Iran and Cuba, but I know of no FOSS project which even considers forgoing cryptography in order to comply with such rules. The burden of licensing or disabling encryption which is placed on developers there serves as a constant reminder that such restrictions are not normal. I don't want to open the debate on the morality of sanctions and placing more burden on those peoples least able to handle it, but the United States is not a poor country of starving citizens, nor is it a helpless people ruled over by a tyrannical dictator (whatever you may hear). If Americans wish to stop people stifling entire areas of research because they "had that idea in the shower once", then they will vote to end these abstract and open-ended software patents. Again, I am not a contributor so my beliefs should not hold sway - but I think the beliefs of the OpenWRT community should. Thanks, Caleb P.S. I hope I'm not going to see a reply arguing that a project with "open" in the name and "freedom" in the slogan should be apolitical. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 10/08/20 13:58, Sam Kuper wrote: IIUC, you are suggesting the creation of a new package repository through which OpenWRT devs who are based in countries (e.g. EU countries) that don't uphold software patents could distribute patent-encumbered software. Users would then be able to decide whether or not to enable that repo. This would be a *little* like Debian's "non-free" repository, insofar as it separates some packages into a different repository than usual (Debian's default repo is called "main") based on their legal status: +1 for this. the compile switch is much less user-friendly than a separate "non-free" repo. -Alberto ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: -Original Message- From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: Mauro Mozzarelli writes: On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their relationship with OpenWrt? This is answered by the FAQ: https://openwrt.org/faq/general And what is the "legal risk"? I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live under some regime you don't like or respect. Bjørn Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right to limit everyone's freedom, just to appease some. That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove that stuff entirely. If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can make it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to be. I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. Best Adrian Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years of debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put into law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor constraints imposed from monopolistic organizations. The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and EU citizens' will must too be respected. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Fwd: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 10/08/2020 06:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to be. Well said ! +1 I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. Best Adrian ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 09:36:08AM +0100, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: > If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, Worth considering: do we know for sure that it's a minority? And is it even relevant whether it is a minority or a majority, as long as we know that some developers and some users do live or work in jurisdictions where software patents are litigiously upheld? > we can make it easy for that minority to be able to strip those > software components (or they can propose and implement changes that > achieve that themselves), but in no way limit or prevent everyone from > making use of it. IIUC, you are suggesting the creation of a new package repository through which OpenWRT devs who are based in countries (e.g. EU countries) that don't uphold software patents could distribute patent-encumbered software. Users would then be able to decide whether or not to enable that repo. This would be a *little* like Debian's "non-free" repository, insofar as it separates some packages into a different repository than usual (Debian's default repo is called "main") based on their legal status: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive#s-non-free . I emphasised "little" in the previous sentence because Debian's non-free repo was based on copyright (not patents), whereas your proposal AIUI is based on patents (not copyright). See, e.g.: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:10:57AM +0100, Daniel James wrote: > [..] As a short-term measure, I suggest that the xmms package in > Debian is split into xmms and xmms-mpg123 with the latter package > moving to non-free. I have cc'd the maintainers of the xmms > package in Debian. This is generally not regarded as an appropriate use of non-free; patent-encumbered works cause problems whether they're shipped in non-free or in main. [..] Steve Langasek Source: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00082.html To me, as an OpenWRT user, your proposal seems reasonable, but IANAL. It would seem wise for OpenWRT devs to seek advice on the proposal, from SPI and/or SFC. Best wishes, Sam -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:21:26PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 6:09 AM Sam Kuper wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 10:55:37AM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:11:13PM +0300, Etienne Champetier wrote: Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : > Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to > Fedora whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. > There are many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt > does for legal reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or > should a more liberal policy regarding patented functionality be > taken? >>> >>> For OpenWRT at least, might Debian be a more appropriate exemplar >>> than Fedora? Unlike Fedora AFAIK, but like OpenWRT, Debian is >>> represented in some sense by SPI: >>> https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ . >>> >>> The debian-legal mailing list archives can be searched for the >>> decisions taken by the debian-legal team, and the reasoning behind >>> those decisions: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ . >> >> Here is an example of discussion on that list, that is on a similar >> topic to the original question in this thread: patent-encumbered >> software. It also speaks to differences between the Debian and Red >> Hat policies. >> >> (The example is 15 years old, so perhaps not representative of >> current policy. I'm just giving it as an example.) >> >> [The] reason Debian continues to include the mp3 decoder library >> is that this patent, like so many other software patents, does >> not appear to be actively enforced. This is the standard Debian >> uses in deciding whether to distribute the software; Red Hat >> evidently uses a different standard. > > Yep. And this is the issue. Which standard is to be followed, Red > Hat's or Debian? [..] > > I'd like a decision on this issue. [..] Yes; that's why I suggested contacting SPI and/or SFC.* Those organisations exist to help libre software projects to thrive. They might be able to provide suitable legal advice to ensure that if OpenWRT adopts a policy on how to deal with patented software, that policy would be a well-informed one that provides the maximum benefit to OpenWRT's users, within the OpenWRT devs' risk appetite. I'm not an OpenWRT dev, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to contact SPI or SFC on behalf of OpenWRT; but you seem to be, so perhaps you should? Maybe CC, into that message, any other devs who are interested in formulating an OpenWRT patent policy (and at least CC the SPI OpenWRT liaisons, Imre Kaloz and John Crispin)? And if you get any useful info from SPI or SFC, then maybe use it to help formulate an OpenWRT patent policy RFC and post it to this mailing list (e.g. as a follow-up to this thread)? (For an example of a recent OpenWRT RFC thread, see Paul Spooren's thread on PKG_RELEASE policy. To find the latter in your inbox, search for Message-ID 5ee96304-afff-c527-4c52-a9704bb9b...@aparcar.org .) Good luck, Sam * Note 1: SFC is not to be confused with SFLC. They are different organisations run by different people. Note 2: I would not recommend contacting SFLC, for the reasons given by Matthew Garrett: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/49370.html . This creates a possible difficulty, insofar as SPI currently lists SFLC as its legal advisor: https://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/board/ . A reasonable solution to that difficulty would be that if you do contact SPI, you could say in that message that you would prefer SPI not to contact SFLC on your behalf without first checking with you. -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
RE: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
> -Original Message- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] > On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli > Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36 > To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED > > On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Mauro Mozzarelli writes: > >> On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> > >>> I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella > >>> organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk > >>> without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. > >>> > >>> Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? > >> Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their > >> relationship with OpenWrt? > > This is answered by the FAQ: > > https://openwrt.org/faq/general > > > >> And what is the "legal risk"? > > I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. > > > > This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not > > putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live > > under some regime you don't like or respect. > > > > > > Bjørn > > Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right to > limit > everyone's freedom, just to appease some. That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove that stuff entirely. > > If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can > make > it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or > they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but > in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an environment it has to care about. And that of course includes caring about the interests of important stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our decisions based on how we would like the world to be. I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely. Best Adrian > > > > > ___ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel openpgp-digital-signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote: Mauro Mozzarelli writes: On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their relationship with OpenWrt? This is answered by the FAQ: https://openwrt.org/faq/general And what is the "legal risk"? I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live under some regime you don't like or respect. Bjørn Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is right to limit everyone's freedom, just to appease some. If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, we can make it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software components (or they can propose and implement changes that achieve that themselves), but in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 6:09 AM Sam Kuper wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 10:55:37AM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:11:13PM +0300, Etienne Champetier wrote: > >> Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : > >>> Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora > >>> whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are > >>> many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal > >>> reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more > >>> liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? > > > > For OpenWRT at least, might Debian be a more appropriate exemplar than > > Fedora? Unlike Fedora AFAIK, but like OpenWRT, Debian is represented > > in some sense by SPI: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ . > > > > The debian-legal mailing list archives can be searched for the > > decisions taken by the debian-legal team, and the reasoning behind > > those decisions: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ . > > Here is an example of discussion on that list, that is on a similar > topic to the original question in this thread: patent-encumbered > software. It also speaks to differences between the Debian and Red Hat > policies. > > (The example is 15 years old, so perhaps not representative of current > policy. I'm just giving it as an example.) > > [The] reason Debian continues to include the mp3 decoder library is > that this patent, like so many other software patents, does not > appear to be actively enforced. This is the standard Debian uses in > deciding whether to distribute the software; Red Hat evidently uses > a different standard. Yep. And this is the issue. Which standard is to be followed, Red Hat's or Debian? In the packages feed, I've already pushed several changes that irritate people. Stuff like crippling libfaad2 and fdk-aac to strip out patented stuff, removing ffmpeg support from several packages (or making them dependent on BUILD_PATENTED), etc... I've had to tell an mpd user that I will not be fixing MPD to support HE-AAC (which some radio stations use for some bizarre reason). I'd like a decision on this issue. Debian to my knowledge does not sell anything whereas Red Hat is the most profitable Linux company out there, which makes sense as to why they would want to shield themselves from litigation. One problem with Red Hat's approach is that it would get rid of minidlna by default, which many people seem to use. Red Hat and Fedora do not distribute minidlna. I added a replacement for minidlna that does not rely on ffmpeg and overall works better but there's a massive size increase with it (it uses C++17 with several C++ libraries). I've tried to use static linking to keep the size down but it can only be slimmed so much. > > Source: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00082.html As a sidenote, Fedora now includes mp3 support as all the patents have expired. Same with mpeg2 support. > > -- > A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? > > () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary > /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 10:55:37AM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:11:13PM +0300, Etienne Champetier wrote: >> Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : >>> Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora >>> whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are >>> many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal >>> reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more >>> liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? > > For OpenWRT at least, might Debian be a more appropriate exemplar than > Fedora? Unlike Fedora AFAIK, but like OpenWRT, Debian is represented > in some sense by SPI: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ . > > The debian-legal mailing list archives can be searched for the > decisions taken by the debian-legal team, and the reasoning behind > those decisions: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ . Here is an example of discussion on that list, that is on a similar topic to the original question in this thread: patent-encumbered software. It also speaks to differences between the Debian and Red Hat policies. (The example is 15 years old, so perhaps not representative of current policy. I'm just giving it as an example.) [The] reason Debian continues to include the mp3 decoder library is that this patent, like so many other software patents, does not appear to be actively enforced. This is the standard Debian uses in deciding whether to distribute the software; Red Hat evidently uses a different standard. Source: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00082.html -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
Mauro Mozzarelli writes: > On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella >> organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk >> without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. >> >> Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? > > Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their > relationship with OpenWrt? This is answered by the FAQ: https://openwrt.org/faq/general > And what is the "legal risk"? I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI. This is not a technical or a political discussion. It's about not putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live under some regime you don't like or respect. Bjørn ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On 08/08/2020 17:56, Rosen Penev wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: Since OpenWrt is NOT US Based and in fact it appears to be mostly supported with EU contributions, we should be following the more liberal EU policies. Personally I am against software patents and I campaigned for the decision that the EU parliament took to ban them despite significant lobby from US corporations that would have wanted to limit and monopolize software development. As we know US companies even patent human genome, which is absurd. I happen to agree but IANAL. I am proud of the EU decision and I believe that OpenWrt should be aligned with that spirit. Do you believe that BUILD_PATENTED should be turned on by default? https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/config/Config-build.in#L64 I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their relationship with OpenWrt? And what is the "legal risk"? Again, OpenWrt is NOT a US based project. US legislation should not and must not apply. We have already seen what US corporations do to open source software. Nothing good can come out of them. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 07:11:13PM +0300, Etienne Champetier wrote: > Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : >> The remerged OpenWrt project is legally represented by the Software >> in the Public Interest (SPI) - an US 501(c)(3) non-profit >> organization which is managing our OpenWrt trademark, handling our >> donations and helping us with legal problems. > > Software Freedom Conservancy (future replacement of SPI) is also US > based > >> Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora >> whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are >> many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal >> reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more >> liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? For OpenWRT at least, might Debian be a more appropriate exemplar than Fedora? Unlike Fedora AFAIK, but like OpenWRT, Debian is represented in some sense by SPI: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/debian/ . The debian-legal mailing list archives can be searched for the decisions taken by the debian-legal team, and the reasoning behind those decisions: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ . In cases where doubt still remains, OpenWRT devs should probably consult with staff of the SPI (currently, the project liaisons are listed as John Crispin and Imre Kaloz: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/openwrt/ ) and/or with staff of the Software Freedom Conservancy. IMO, this should be done via a publicly archived mailing list, for transparency. -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On 08/08/2020 17:56, Rosen Penev wrote: On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: Since OpenWrt is NOT US Based and in fact it appears to be mostly supported with EU contributions, we should be following the more liberal EU policies. Personally I am against software patents and I campaigned for the decision that the EU parliament took to ban them despite significant lobby from US corporations that would have wanted to limit and monopolize software development. As we know US companies even patent human genome, which is absurd. I happen to agree but IANAL. I am proud of the EU decision and I believe that OpenWrt should be aligned with that spirit. Do you believe that BUILD_PATENTED should be turned on by default? https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/config/Config-build.in#L64 I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk without at least contacting them first and getting their approval. Has anyone asked SPI about it yet? -- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM Mauro Mozzarelli wrote: > > Since OpenWrt is NOT US Based and in fact it appears to be mostly > supported with EU contributions, we should be following the more liberal > EU policies. > > Personally I am against software patents and I campaigned for the > decision that the EU parliament took to ban them despite significant > lobby from US corporations that would have wanted to limit and > monopolize software development. > > As we know US companies even patent human genome, which is absurd. I happen to agree but IANAL. > > I am proud of the EU decision and I believe that OpenWrt should be > aligned with that spirit. Do you believe that BUILD_PATENTED should be turned on by default? https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/config/Config-build.in#L64 > > > Best regards, > Mauro > > On 07/08/2020 21:41, Rosen Penev wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:11 AM Etienne Champetier > > wrote: > >> Hi Rosen, > >> > >> Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : > >>> Recently there's been a pull request to get patented functionality in > >>> the packages feed: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/12992 > >>> > >>> Which pointed me to this lovely description: > >>> https://www.videolan.org/legal.html > >>> > >>> Two excerpts: > >>> > >>> In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that > >>> allows circumvention in some cases. > >>> VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US > >>> jurisdiction. > >>> > >>> Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as > >>> patentable (see French section below). > >>> Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software. > >>> > >>> The commit that disabled patented packages is: > >>> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/dc555d003c21679c8c94ac7f5c74cbd5cd089ae0 > >>> > >>> This caused controversy regarding ffmpeg at the time since it meant > >>> that minidlna would be unavailable. > >>> > >>> Which brings me to my question. How should BUILD_PATENTED be treated? > >>> OpenWrt as far as I know is not US based. > >> OpenWrt is represented by a US non profit, so not sure where it is based. > >> https://openwrt.org/about > >>> The remerged OpenWrt project is legally represented by the Software in > >>> the Public Interest (SPI) - an US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which > >>> is managing our OpenWrt trademark, handling our donations and helping us > >>> with legal problems. > >> Software Freedom Conservancy (future replacement of SPI) is also US based > > Sounds problematic then. > >> Best > >> > >> Etienne > >> > >>> Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora > >>> whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are > >>> many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal > >>> reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more > >>> liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> openwrt-devel mailing list > >>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > >>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > ___ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
Since OpenWrt is NOT US Based and in fact it appears to be mostly supported with EU contributions, we should be following the more liberal EU policies. Personally I am against software patents and I campaigned for the decision that the EU parliament took to ban them despite significant lobby from US corporations that would have wanted to limit and monopolize software development. As we know US companies even patent human genome, which is absurd. I am proud of the EU decision and I believe that OpenWrt should be aligned with that spirit. Best regards, Mauro On 07/08/2020 21:41, Rosen Penev wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:11 AM Etienne Champetier wrote: Hi Rosen, Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : Recently there's been a pull request to get patented functionality in the packages feed: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/12992 Which pointed me to this lovely description: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html Two excerpts: In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that allows circumvention in some cases. VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US jurisdiction. Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as patentable (see French section below). Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software. The commit that disabled patented packages is: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/dc555d003c21679c8c94ac7f5c74cbd5cd089ae0 This caused controversy regarding ffmpeg at the time since it meant that minidlna would be unavailable. Which brings me to my question. How should BUILD_PATENTED be treated? OpenWrt as far as I know is not US based. OpenWrt is represented by a US non profit, so not sure where it is based. https://openwrt.org/about The remerged OpenWrt project is legally represented by the Software in the Public Interest (SPI) - an US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which is managing our OpenWrt trademark, handling our donations and helping us with legal problems. Software Freedom Conservancy (future replacement of SPI) is also US based Sounds problematic then. Best Etienne Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:11 AM Etienne Champetier wrote: > > Hi Rosen, > > Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : > > > > Recently there's been a pull request to get patented functionality in > > the packages feed: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/12992 > > > > Which pointed me to this lovely description: > > https://www.videolan.org/legal.html > > > > Two excerpts: > > > > In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that > > allows circumvention in some cases. > > VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US > > jurisdiction. > > > > Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as > > patentable (see French section below). > > Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software. > > > > The commit that disabled patented packages is: > > https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/dc555d003c21679c8c94ac7f5c74cbd5cd089ae0 > > > > This caused controversy regarding ffmpeg at the time since it meant > > that minidlna would be unavailable. > > > > Which brings me to my question. How should BUILD_PATENTED be treated? > > OpenWrt as far as I know is not US based. > > OpenWrt is represented by a US non profit, so not sure where it is based. > https://openwrt.org/about > > The remerged OpenWrt project is legally represented by the Software in the > > Public Interest (SPI) - an US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which is > > managing our OpenWrt trademark, handling our donations and helping us with > > legal problems. > > Software Freedom Conservancy (future replacement of SPI) is also US based Sounds problematic then. > > Best > > Etienne > > > > > Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora > > whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are > > many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal > > reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more > > liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? > > > > ___ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
Hi Rosen, Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev a écrit : > > Recently there's been a pull request to get patented functionality in > the packages feed: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/12992 > > Which pointed me to this lovely description: > https://www.videolan.org/legal.html > > Two excerpts: > > In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that > allows circumvention in some cases. > VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US > jurisdiction. > > Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as > patentable (see French section below). > Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software. > > The commit that disabled patented packages is: > https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/dc555d003c21679c8c94ac7f5c74cbd5cd089ae0 > > This caused controversy regarding ffmpeg at the time since it meant > that minidlna would be unavailable. > > Which brings me to my question. How should BUILD_PATENTED be treated? > OpenWrt as far as I know is not US based. OpenWrt is represented by a US non profit, so not sure where it is based. https://openwrt.org/about > The remerged OpenWrt project is legally represented by the Software in the > Public Interest (SPI) - an US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which is > managing our OpenWrt trademark, handling our donations and helping us with > legal problems. Software Freedom Conservancy (future replacement of SPI) is also US based Best Etienne > > Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora > whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are > many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal > reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more > liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
Recently there's been a pull request to get patented functionality in the packages feed: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/12992 Which pointed me to this lovely description: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html Two excerpts: In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that allows circumvention in some cases. VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US jurisdiction. Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as patentable (see French section below). Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software. The commit that disabled patented packages is: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/dc555d003c21679c8c94ac7f5c74cbd5cd089ae0 This caused controversy regarding ffmpeg at the time since it meant that minidlna would be unavailable. Which brings me to my question. How should BUILD_PATENTED be treated? OpenWrt as far as I know is not US based. Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
