I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA algorithm
-- because the presence of that code makes them non-free. As far as I
know, no program in Debian actually uses this code, it's just
inherited from upstream
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 09:09:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA algorithm
-- because the presence of that code makes them non-free.
because ? I fail to see the
* Pierre Habouzit:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 09:09:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA algorithm
-- because the presence of that code makes them non-free.
because ?
Hi Florian!
You wrote:
I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA algorithm
-- because the presence of that code makes them non-free. As far as I
know, no program in Debian actually uses this code, it's
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 09:09:23AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA algorithm
-- because the presence of that code makes them non-free. As far as I
know, no program in
On Apr 10, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA algorithm
-- because the presence of that code makes them non-free. As far as I
know, no program in Debian
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:17:13 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Apr 10, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan to file a couple of bugs (not too many, probably a dozen) on
packages which contain implementations of the patented IDEA
algorithm -- because the presence
* Neil Williams:
Which are the offending libraries?
Botan, Crypto++, BouncyCastle, a few Perl-related packages.
Is this mass-bug-filing intended to be against the applications that
link against the libraries or just the offending libraries
themselves?
Just the libraries. Debian's crypto
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:01:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Neil Williams:
Which are the offending libraries?
Botan, Crypto++, BouncyCastle, a few Perl-related packages.
Openssl's README.Debian contains:
Some algorithms used in the library are covered by patents. As
a result, the
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:51:13PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
IANAL, but being open source, a patent lawyer would probably try to
claim that distributing the code ALLOWS the infringement of the patent
as if that makes Debian complicit in the infringement.
Er, by definition a patent is
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Er, by definition a patent is supposed to include a complete description of
the invention that would permit a third-party to reimplement the invention,
in exchange for granting the inventor exclusive rights to the invention for
a limited time. Would
[Cc'd to debian-legal in the hope of some informed comment.]
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 14:53 -0400, Matthias Julius wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Er, by definition a patent is supposed to include a complete description of
the invention that would permit a third-party to
* Kurt Roeckx:
As far as I understand, they have been disabled because at that
time, it seems we only cared about using those, not about
distributing them.
Disabling it and telling users the reason in the package documentation
is sufficient, I guess.
Is there consensus that we shouldn't ship
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is an argument that source code can only be a description whereas
a binary is an implementation, so only distributing binaries that
include the claimed invention could infringe. I'm not sure whether this
has been legally tested.
If this holds
14 matches
Mail list logo
