On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote:
> Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> [...]
> > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he
> > > will fix the bug or not.
> > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bu
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 03.25, Florent Bayle wrote:
[libpano12]
> http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there
> is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous
> discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that :
> "The prior art argumen
The senior patent holder is presumably now Ford Oxaal, who discusses
his licensing policy, his relationship to iPIX, and the status of
Helmut Dersch's "PT toolset" at
http://www.pictosphere.com/kwx/faq.html .
I have made no attempt to evaluate the strength of his patents in
light of the prior art,
Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit :
[...]
> > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he
> > will fix the bug or not.
>
> The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- either
> it gets fixed, or the package gets removed.
>
Ye
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote:
> Le Mardi 21 Juin 2005 18:10, Robert Jordens a écrit :
> > severity 309257 grave
> > tags 309257 - wontfix
> > tags 309257 + sid etch
> > thanks
> You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he will
> fix the
Le Mardi 21 Juin 2005 18:10, Robert Jordens a écrit :
> severity 309257 grave
> tags 309257 - wontfix
> tags 309257 + sid etch
> thanks
>
You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he will
fix the bug or not.
>
> Hey!
>
> * Florent Bayle:
> > severity 309257 important
>
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 mai 2005 à 12:12 +0200, Robert Jordens a écrit :
> > For a user or for Debian we can't knowingly risk lawsuits even if we
> > think they can be won.
>
> So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a
> jackass claims he
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 08:33:30PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 mai 2005 à 12:12 +0200, Robert Jordens a écrit :
> > For a user or for Debian we can't knowingly risk lawsuits even if we
> > think they can be won.
>
> So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a
Le lundi 16 mai 2005 à 20:33 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
> So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a
> jackass claims he has some prior art?
I meant "some patent", of course.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
Le lundi 16 mai 2005 à 12:12 +0200, Robert Jordens a écrit :
> For a user or for Debian we can't knowingly risk lawsuits even if we
> think they can be won.
So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a
jackass claims he has some prior art?
Come on, please resurrect the non-us
Hello!
[Mon, 16 May 2005] MJ Ray wrote:
> Read more about the iPIX vs Dersch from FFII at
> http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/ipix/
>
> The second link (contains patent titles) suggests that there
> is clear prior art.
Thanks for the link!
The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our
Read more about the iPIX vs Dersch from FFII at
http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/ipix/
The second link (contains patent titles) suggests that there
is clear prior art.
Interactive Pictures appear to be a tn.us corporation - does anyone
nearby know whether any regulations forbid so-called patent
12 matches
Mail list logo
