Aniruddha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just wanted to say that sounds like a great idea.
Thanks!
I really hope that the packages of debian-multimedia are included in
Debian someday.
I currently don't have the impression that the maintainer(s) of
http://debian-multimedia.org have any
Am 2008-10-07 19:17:52, schrieb Didier Raboud:
Yes...
If I am in a country where the usage of the patented repo is forbidden for
whatever reason, I could (legally) not rebuild the whole main myself.
Even if there is no problem in your country you can not even build Etch
from scratch...
I
Hello Ben and *,
Am 2008-10-08 00:07:18, schrieb Ben Finney:
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
a) debian/spi is a
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A more significant distinction is, as I've pointed out several
times already, that the Fraunhofer patents on MPEG audio
algorithms *are known to be actively enforced* by the holder
against parties who
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Depending on the requirements of ftp-master, which *seem* to think that
non-free were inappropriate for this kind of packages, my proposal tries
to address that by introducing a new archive section.
I am aware that this is against our current
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
responsibilities
I've not seen anyone argue that it is, nor request that we do such
enforcement.
Then you have been closing your eyes. I've already
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 04:44:40PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific patented
section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
countries where it is not a problem.
While
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 09:15:16PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:30:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So I think we need to modify the proposal, not the policy.
We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
responsibilities or that we
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:30:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]. I have absolutely no idea whether any
of the software that I package is affected by some patent.
You're putting all patents in the same bag, and it's not like that. For
example, if you distribute a windowing system, you're
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:41:16AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
a convenience service for our users and distributors.
Such convenience services
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:54:22PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
- packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless wrong patent system by
doing this.
If
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our users weight the quality of our product against the risk of liability
that it carries. I think it's obvious we need some balance. In some cases
(e.g. Linux, Glibc or X11) the risk is low and quality strongly depends on
them; in others (e.g. MPEG
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But software patents cover algorithms contained in programs, not the
packages themselves. How about the more descriptive patent-encumbered
then?
I don't really have a strong opinion on the naming here. Perhaps I
should really haved used 'main' and
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:30:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]. I have absolutely no idea whether any
of the software that I package is affected by some patent.
You're putting all patents in the same bag, and it's not like that.
Agreed; I
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:30:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]. I have absolutely no idea whether any
of the software that I package is affected by some patent.
You're putting all patents in the same bag, and
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A more significant distinction is, as I've pointed out several times
already, that the Fraunhofer patents on MPEG audio algorithms *are
known to be actively enforced* by the holder against parties who
infringe those patents.
Please back up that claim!
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired software
such as libdvdcss.
BTW, it's DMCA exemption time:
http://www.contentagenda.com/blog/150150/post/640034464.html
Hi,
I was thinking whether not to mail this at all, or to -curiosa or to Gunnar,
but then, I think it's useful to spread the message how silly patents are...
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 21:13, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
For positive proof, I'd buy it - but we must remember logical
fallacies can be
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
I would be very uncomfortable trying to fill out something that specific.
It looks remarkably like legal advice that I'm not qualified to give or
judge.
I agree it looks like legal advice, and neither would I be capable of
handing out legal advice.
On Wed, Oct 08 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can not be
built
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:30:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So I think we need to modify the proposal, not the policy.
We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
responsibilities or that we expose ourself to any kind of liability
by distributing code that may
On Wed, Oct 08 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:30:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So I think we need to modify the proposal, not the policy.
We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
responsibilities or that we expose ourself to any kind
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:37:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So don't. Don't put any of the patent encumbered sources in main
either -- there is nothing that says patent infringement does not
happen as source code.
That would meet the current policy as well.
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
responsibilities
I've not seen anyone argue that it is, nor request that we do such
enforcement.
or that we expose ourself to any kind of liability by distributing
code that may or may not
On Wed, Oct 08 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 04:37:26PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So don't. Don't put any of the patent encumbered sources in main
either -- there is nothing that says patent infringement does not
happen as source code.
That would
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We need to stop pretending that patent enforcement is one of our
responsibilities or that we expose ourself to any kind of liability
by distributing code that may or may not be patent-encumbered.
This is exactly my concern as well. I have absolutely no
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
b) debian does not sell hardware
Many recipients
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The best reference for patent enforcments I have is
http://www.mpegla.com/news.cfm.
However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
b) debian
Le mercredi 08 octobre 2008 à 00:07 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However none of those lawsuits are comparable to debian, becuase:
a) debian/spi is a non-profit organisation
b) debian does not sell hardware
Many recipients of Debian do
Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 09:03, Robert Millan wrote:
Unclaimed patents are precisely the reason we don't have any MPEG encoders
in Debian (see http://techliberation.com/2006/05/11/mpeg-patent-thicket/).
Wrong. We dont have mpeg encoders in Debian
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 03:44:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
It has been already suggested to resurrect the non-us archive for such
cases, but this is not even necessary, since it is not a problem for us
to distribute such software from the US.
At the very least, we could distribute
Hi Reinhard,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 12:11, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Can you please backup that claim?
Well, no and yes ;-)
You confirm it yourself, but then say its not comparible. I only said that
those patents are being enforced, which they are. (I didnt mention whether
thats comparible
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific patented
section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
countries where it is not a problem.
While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired software
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the very least, we could distribute them in a specific patented
section, with rules similar to non-free, and that we’d only mirror in
countries where it is not a problem.
While we are at it, would be nice to have a section
Didier Raboud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented' to
their sources.list, right.
Do you see a
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
- packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless wrong patent system by
doing this.
Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we are at it, would be nice to have a section for DMCA-impaired software
such as libdvdcss.
Presumably they couldn't be distributed from ftp-master (which is in the USA)?
--
bye,
pabs
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:54:22PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
- packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictions
on
this planet
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Didier Raboud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented' to
their
Didier Raboud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
Yes...
If I am in a country where the usage of the patented repo is forbidden for
whatever reason, I could (legally) not rebuild the whole main myself.
Usage is generally not the problem with that
Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
- packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless wrong patent
system by doing this.
I fully agree with you in principle.
Michael Banck dijo [Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:14:23PM +0200]:
Also, something must patented in which / how many of the 160 juristrictions
on
this planet (to apply for this category)?
How do you tell if a piece of software violates a patent? Run wc -l on
the source; if the number is
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
- introduce a new section 'patented'
- packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg
- source packages in 'main' may produce binaries in 'patented'
- binary packages in 'main' must not depend on packages in 'patented'
-
On Tue, Oct 07 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Didier Raboud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- source packages in 'main' may build-depend on packages in 'patented'
This is problematic for a self-buildable main everywhere, no ?
This means that buildds would need to add both 'main' and 'patented'
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can
not be built with the software contained in main.
s/can not be built/can not be built and installed/
It's
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps instead of trying to come with a hierarchical classification,
we should simply expose what we know about patents and any other
distribution issue in a machine readable way.
What a bout a debian/distribution or debian/copyright2 file which
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
a convenience service for our users and distributors.
Such convenience services already exist (debian-multimedia.org,
debian-unofficial.org), Debian
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree with you in principle. The 'restricted' idea is basically
a convenience service for our users and distributors.
Such convenience services already exist (debian-multimedia.org,
debian-unofficial.org), Debian doesn't need to start one.
My
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you see a particular problem with requiring that?
Yes. I think main should remain self contained. This is the
same reason we have a contrib section -- packages in contrib can not be
built with the software contained in main.
Depending
49 matches
Mail list logo
