about software patents
Hi, Does anyone know how this affects us -if it does- and if it might change anything for the packages and programs that have problems with software patents? Might there be any consequences out of this -even though it is somehow USA-specific- or is it just blog noise? Greetings, Miry The Patent and Trademark Office has now made clear that its newly developed position on patentable subject matter will invalidate many and perhaps most software patents, including pioneering patent claims to such innovators as Google, Inc. [1] The Patent and Trademark Office has argued in favor of imposing new restrictions on the scope of patentable subject matter set forth by Congress in article 101 of the Patent Act. In the most recent of these three — the currently pending en banc Bilski appeal — the Office takes the position that process inventions generally are unpatentable unless they 'result in a physical transformation of an article' or are 'tied to a particular machine. [2] In two recent decisions announced after the oral arguments in the Bilski case, Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008), [3] the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has now supplied an answer to that question: A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general purpose computer. [1] The Death of Google's Patents? http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07/the-death-of-go.html [2] The Death of Nearly All Software Patents? http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/07/24/1458215.shtml [3] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd081495.pdf http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd081496.pdf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: F.C. Doc.
The message entitled :- Re: F.C. Doc. sent to :- [EMAIL PROTECTED] on :- 2008-11-25 at 15:28:35 has been quarantined at the Land Securities email gateway. This is because an executable attachment has been detected within the email. If the quarantined email is work related simply REPLY to this notification, making sure you include this text. A Helpdesk Analyst will then examine the email to ensure that it can be released. Please do NOT include the original email or attachment in your message as this will be blocked and will not be received by the IS Helpdesk. Kind regards, IS Helpdesk Land Securities --- Executables --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deluge and GeoIP database license
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:09:45PM +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote: Cristian Greco schrieb: Hi all, I'm working for a new upload of deluge[0] (bittorrent client). The source tarball includes a GeoLite Country (binary) database by MaxMind, which should be distributed using the license[1] below. Please do not ship any copys of the database, such things are serious. I know, but actually the license seems to be suitable for main, isn't it? Thanks, Cristian -- . ''`. Cristian Greco - [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : http://alioth.debian.org/~cristian-guest `. `'` GPG Public Key ID: 1024D/0C095825 `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#506609: axyl: code copy of Xinha ships the ImageManager plugin released under the PHP 2.02 licence
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:09:27 + MJ Ray wrote: Raphael Geissert wrote: -legal: can a final concensus be reached on whether this licence is DFSG-free? I'm happy to support http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html To summarise:- - unacceptable name approval restrictions for anything except PHP (DFSG 4); - general non-applicability and false statements for anything other than PHP Group works. Furthermore, the licence is generally vague and ambiguous and open to various interpretations. It's disappointing it remains unfixed. I agree it's disappointing that the license is still unfixed. But I think it's not surprising at all, taking into account how few people seem to care about PHP license issues... I repeatedly stated my opinion on the PHP license and its unfixed issues: I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01), fails to meet the DFSG, even for PHP itself! However I failed to gain consensus on debian-legal about the problem: other people seem to disagree and/or don't seem to care much. See my analysis of the license at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html for further details. N.B.: the above is my own personal opinion and my usual disclaimers apply (IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP). -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND nano-documents may lead you to my website... . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpC347tn0bhH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: deluge and GeoIP database license
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:09:45PM +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote: Yeah it was considered non-free. I adopted the package and fixed the issues together with the upstream authors. It is fixed since I am repackaging it with a dfsg tarball. I see your point here. I had a look at your geoip package in experimental (1.4.5.dfsg-1). You removed the string All Rights Reserved from the GeoIP database using: $ sed 's/ All Rights Reserved//' -i data/GeoIP.dat In effect, the GeoLiteCountry database used by deluge has the very same problem: $ wget http://www.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/GeoLiteCountry/GeoIP.dat.gz $ gunzip GeoIP.dat.gz $ strings GeoIP.dat GEO-106FREE 20081101 Build 1 Copyright (c) 2007 MaxMind LLC All Rights Reserved I guess I'll ask MaxMind for a similar permission to change the copyright statement and then I'll repackage the source tarball. Any suggestion? Thanks, Cristian -- . ''`. Cristian Greco - [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : http://alioth.debian.org/~cristian-guest `. `'` GPG Public Key ID: 1024D/0C095825 `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#506609: axyl: code copy of Xinha ships the ImageManager plugin released under the PHP 2.02 licence
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I repeatedly stated my opinion on the PHP license and its unfixed issues: I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01), fails to meet the DFSG, even for PHP itself! However I failed to gain consensus on debian-legal about the problem: other people seem to disagree and/or don't seem to care much. See my analysis of the license at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html for further details. In short, Francesco Poli believes that the name-change requirement (not to include PHP in the name at all) is more than DFSG 4 allows. I'm still not sure where that boundary lies - most of the times that I've seen DFSG 4, it's been about whether a particular patch style is acceptable, or something obviously silly like a trademark/copyright interaction. Notwithstanding the lack of consensus about the PHP License for PHP itself, I think we have consensus in the context of this bug. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deluge and GeoIP database license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Cristian Greco schrieb: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:09:45PM +0100, Patrick Matthäi wrote: Yeah it was considered non-free. I adopted the package and fixed the issues together with the upstream authors. It is fixed since I am repackaging it with a dfsg tarball. I see your point here. I had a look at your geoip package in experimental (1.4.5.dfsg-1). You removed the string All Rights Reserved from the GeoIP database using: $ sed 's/ All Rights Reserved//' -i data/GeoIP.dat In effect, the GeoLiteCountry database used by deluge has the very same problem: $ wget http://www.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/GeoLiteCountry/GeoIP.dat.gz $ gunzip GeoIP.dat.gz $ strings GeoIP.dat GEO-106FREE 20081101 Build 1 Copyright (c) 2007 MaxMind LLC All Rights Reserved I guess I'll ask MaxMind for a similar permission to change the copyright statement and then I'll repackage the source tarball. Any suggestion? At least you are free to remove it from your copy also, it is not restricted for Debian-only (what would be non-free per DGSG). See debian/README.Debian-source. Anyway it would be still a RC bug if you embedde code copys in your package. If you *realy* just need the database file (not the library itself) you could also depend on the new geoip-database package from experimental, which just includes the database, but I do not recommend this. - -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comment: Always if we think we are right, we were maybe wrong. */ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkksXj8ACgkQ2XA5inpabMdUXQCfT7lDyYU2MtZKCBnKeOplkf6h fVsAn0Y9CTSD8KiueMR712jrMssFDDZy =4MUL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
