On 8/30/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... xor is patented.
For that matter, wikipedia currently lists five different patents
on perpetual motion devices.
The standards for getting a patent are low, and despite legal
practice to the contrary patents really should be treated as
Bas Wijnen wrote:
Hello,
When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According
to the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the
MPEG2/MPEG4
codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is
needed in order to use it,
posted mailed
Bas Wijnen wrote:
The question was if that is indeed the way Debian does these things. And
in
particular, people do get sued for using the mpeg4 codec, IIUC. So does
that
mean we would at least consider it non-free? Or not distributable at all?
Non-distributable. If
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we
should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so,
and place the
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
interpretation of software as such as the European Patent Office.
This means that they completely disrespect Article
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law.
Weakish Jiang wrote:
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and Germany is
one of the rogue countries...
Doesn't German patent law
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The DFSG is concerned with the rights that the copyright holder extends
to us, and by extension, people using software in Debian. This does
not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
TTBOMK, the DFSG does not refer to the copyright holder directly, nor
Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
interpretation of software as such as the European Patent Office.
This means that they completely disrespect Article 52 [1]. However, their
Stephen Gran wrote:
The DFSG does not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
Are you arguing that you would like Debian to remove every piece of
software that might potentially be covered by a patent in any jurisdiction
Debian distributes software to?
Why we have main/Non-US?
--
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why we have main/Non-US?
1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, the code was placed on a server outside the US. It was
still legal to use this software
Thank Adam for hir detailed explanation.
In fact, other people in this maillist used to give similar opinions,
but not in a so detailed (and clear) way.
I used to give such an assertionany patent, unless it is licensed for
everyone's free use or not licensed at all, is against the DFSG. Now
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why we have main/Non-US?
1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
So we can make use of it. :)
2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, the code was placed on a
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we
should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so,
and place the code on a server outside the
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:02:17PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why we have main/Non-US?
1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
So we can make use of it. :)
This would be non-US-Japan-UK-Germany (IIRC), but it's
On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and Germany is
one of the rogue countries...
Doesn't German patent law adhere to the EPC?
--
Magnus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the rights attached to the program and other such phrases. To
the extent
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the rights attached to the program and other
Stephen Gran wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
opposite of current practice.
I think it's against the
On 8/18/06, Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Gran wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
opposite of current practice.
I think it's against the DFSG1 Free Redistribution and the DFSG3
Derived Works.
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that
On 8/17/06, Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4
is patented. It's well known.
In general, we do not know that filed patents are valid
patents.
In general, most patents which apply to programs that
run on general purpose computers
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about the rights attached to the program and other such
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't
Bas Wijnen wrote:
It would be illegal for us
to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know,
and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely
(actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop
distributing when the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour.
IMO, we
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:43:51AM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Weakish Jiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
That's an
This one time, at band camp, Weakish Jiang said:
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
patented.
Unless the patent is licensed
On 8/16/06, Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to
the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4
codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed
in
33 matches
Mail list logo
